Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Jun 1957

Vol. 162 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 28—Fisheries (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That a sum not exceeding £88,200 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for Salaries and Expenses in connection with Sea and Inland Fisheries, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.—(Minister for Lands.)

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

When the debate was adjourned, I was directing the attention of the Minister to the three fishing vessels operated by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. They were described as three second-hand German trawlers. They were purchased by the board originally at a cost of £62,000.

The available engineering reports concerning the condition of the engines and other important parts of those boats reveal that there have been very considerable losses on the operations of those three boats by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Apart entirely from the capital expenditure of over £16,000, we can see that to put one of those boats in full repair with a new engine so that it may fulfil its fishing obligations will cost something in the region of £10,000.

I recall—it is well to refresh the Minister's memory and since he has the records of his Department before him, he will not have any difficulty—on the Fisheries Estimate last year, telling the House that such a continuous loss could not be tolerated, and I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is with regard to the operation of these vessels.

A direction was given by the Minister for Agriculture to have these vessels disposed of at the highest possible offer. I understand that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara had numerous inquiries with regard to their disposal, one of the offers being in the region of £75,000. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is his intention to operate those vessels at a further loss, having regard to the disability under which they are labouring, defective engines and so on, or whether he proposes to have them disposed of with the least possible delay.

It is well to note that their operation has been the subject of very serious criticism. I feel that their purchase, in the first instance, was a blunder. It was a mistake and even though a mistake was made in the original purchase, it is most regrettable if the mistake originally made is to be carried on indefinitely resulting in further and greater losses and in a continuous strain on the financial resources of the board. I trust the Minister has bad time to go fully into the matter of the future of those vessels and that in his reply their future will be made known to us.

Reference was made to the Salmon Research Trust and I agree entirely with the Minister when he tells the House that it is far too early to give the House any information as to the progress which the trust is making. Not alone are our salmon fisheries of the greatest possible importance but they are of the greatest possible value to us. We cannot have a good thriving salmon fishing industry unless we know something about the movement of the salmon and their methods. It is worthy of public record to note with very great appreciation the public-spirited action of Messrs. Arthur Guinness and Company in regard to the establishment of the Salmon Research Trust. I am sure the Minister agrees entirely with the terms of reference of the trust and particularly how important it is that the knowledge even of the technical staff of the Department should, as far as possible, be improved. I feel that the deliberations of this very essential Salmon Research Trust will eventually yield greater and better results.

Whilst I have spoken at length on this Estimate, I have made no reference whatsoever as yet to the Gaeltacht boat scheme. That was designed for the purpose of increasing our fishing fleet as well as serving another two-fold purpose: helping to increasing our landings and helping considerably in the preservation of the fishing tradition in the Gaeltacht. There has been over the years quite a good deal of lip-service with regard to the Gaeltacht. As a matter of fact, it was only during the term of office of the inter-Party Government that proper and full attention was focussed on the Gaeltacht by the setting up of the Department of the Gaeltacht and by the provision of numerous important schemes which have proved of great value to the people there. Of all the schemes initiated in the Gaeltacht, there has been none more beneficial than the scheme for the provision of boats under the Fíor-Ghaeltacht scheme for fishermen in the Gaeltacht areas.

It will be generally agreed it is neither nor wise that very valuable boats should fall into the hands of people who are not properly trained or equipped to man or work them. For that reason again, steps were taken to see that proper training facilities were afforded. In that regard, it is only right that we again place on record the valuable co-operation given and the services rendered by the Minister for Defence when the scheme of training was initiated with regard to the manning of those Gaeltacht boats.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Gaeltacht boats scheme was designed to assist our fishing fleet because of emigration and because it was considered that the fishing industry had declined in certain Gaeltacht areas. When inquiries were made as to the reason for the failure of the fishing industry to maintain its proper standard in the Gaeltacht areas it was discovered that the main difficulty was that boats were not available for the Irish-speaking fishermen. The question then arose as to whether boats could be supplied under the ordinary hire purchase system in operation by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It was discovered that that system would not be of any help or advantage to the fishermen in those areas because great difficulty would be experienced by the Gaeltacht fishermen in providing the requisite 10 per cent. deposit. After certain discussions, and after very careful consideration by the then Minister for Agriculture, it was decided that boats would be provided for the Gaeltacht areas without the usual deposit applying to other coastal districts.

I remember speaking at a meeting in Cahirciveen, County Kerry, on the night the then Taoiseach, Deputy J.A. Costello, gave sanction to the appropriation from the National Development Fund of £80,000 for provision of fishing boats. I remember telling the meeting that the scheme was designed to serve two purpose at once and that it had, on that day, been approved by the then Taoiseach and would be put into operation immediately. I said that steps would be taken immediately because it was an original scheme and one which it was hoped would have far-reaching results. I said:—

"The Department are about to provide first-class fishing boats to Irish-speaking fishermen in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht. A sum of £80,000 is to be expended from the National Development Fund so that boats will be made available to men deemed suitable and competent to work them successfully and the financial arrangements with the crews will provide for the ultimate ownership of the boats by the men themselves. No pre-payment will be required."

That was the text of a speech which I delivered in Cahirciveen on the occassion of the announcement of that scheme.

As it stands, the scheme has been of considerable advantage to the Gaeltacht areas. The former Minister for Agriculture was able to allocate a number of those boats. I have in mind, in particular, one which was launched at Killybegs and which is fishing off the Donegal coast. One was approved for Galway and, shortly before the change of Government, it was decided that the next of those boats would be allocated to Helvic, County Waterford.

I would ask the Minister to give very special attention to the Gaeltacht boats scheme because over the years, the Gaeltacht fishermen have experienced very great difficulties. I feel that even a smaller type of boat should be provided for the hard-working and industrious fishermen of the Gaeltacht I would impress on the Minister the importance of re-examining the scheme and, if possible, extending it. As the scheme stands, the crew must be entirely and completely Irish-speaking. If the crew were not Irish-speaking, the original purpose of the scheme would be defeated. It was especially designed to assist the Gaeltacht

There are many parts of the Gaeltacht where fishermen are anxious to obtain boats. The large type of boat which has already been turned out by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara in respect of the Fíor-Ghaeltacht scheme is considered rather too large for many of the Gaeltacht areas and it is felt that a considerable amount of engineering ability would be necessary to work them. I had intended asking the Department to inquire into the matter a few months ago and put up proposals with regard to the making available of a smaller sized boat for the many other Gaeltacht districts in which there is a desire to obtain such boats.

If the Minister makes inquiries with regard to the West Cork Gaeltacht he will find that the population there has been considerably reduced. I received the figures which, I am sure, are on the departmental records. I had long and detailed discussions with the Bishop of Cork on the occasion of a visit to West Cork in regard to the whole matter. In view of the fact that the Irish-speaking fishermen off the West Cork coast could not provide the necessary wherewithal to obtain the boats, it was thought that the scheme could be considerably extended to the Irish-speaking districts off the coast of Cork. The difficulty, again, in that case will be that the larger type of boat would not be considered suitable. I suggest that efforts should be made by the Minister and his Department to see that, as far as possible, a smaller type of boat will be provided under the Gaeltacht scheme.

I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the co-operation we received from the Commissioners of Irish Lights with regard to the erection of suitable lighting facilities to ensure safe anchorage for fishermen. I think that, in the case of Castletownbere, the Local Development Association were very anxious that pier lights should be provided by the Commissioners. My experience has been that the Commissioners of Irish Lights were most sympathetic and that, where a genuine recommendation was submitted in regard to the provision of lighting facilities, they were made available. I do not know what has transpired since I felt the Department, but, if the facilities requested for Castletownbere have not as yet been provided, I suggest the Minister should take up the case where I felt off so as to ensure that the required facilities will be provided. I discussed this matter with at least two of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. They were most sympathetic about the request on behalf of Castletownbere. Of all the claims submitted to the commissioners for their sympathetic consideration——

Mr. McQuillan

When do the Commissioners of Irish Lights get their funds?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If the Minister is making a tour of the fishing facilities off the West Cork coast he might include a visit to Goleen. He will be able to note the progress there with regard to the lobster export industry. One of our great export assets is the export of lobsters to France. Lobster fishing takes place off the Cork coast —off Ballycotton, off Goleen and off other coastal areas—and it is of the greatest possible value.

Whilst our export trade to France in lobsters has been very considerably increased, I think the first efforts made in that respect were made by the Minister for External Affairs in the inter-Party Government in 1948. There is room for even greater expansion in the export of lobsters to France. I have been wondering about the question of supplies of fish for Switzerland. As we all know, Switzerland is a completely inland country and there is a very great demand for fish there. I do not know whether or not we have any export trade at all the moment with Switzerland. I should be glad of an investigation into the export possibilites of lobsters, periwinkles and other suitable fish so far as Switzerland is concered. I feel there is a considerable cutlet there which would have financial benefit for our lobster fishermen.

Lobster pots are very expensive. They are often lost or broken or the ropes can be disconnected. I have often wondered if a scheme could be devised by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara—in view of the importance of the lobster export industry—to aid lobster fishermen who have suffered loss as a result of damage or complete destruction of their lobster pots. They have their boats and their good lobster fishing grounds. They have their purification tanks, where necessary. The various lobster pots used are expensive. Where loss can be proved, I think that either An, Bord Iascaigh Mhara or the State should have some, scheme whereby a substantial grant of, say, 50 per cent. would be provided in respect of the required set of lobster pots.

There have been a good deal of prosecutions under the Immature Fish Order. In my time, there were a number of persecutions under that Order also. I feel it would be better their own interests to obey the terms of that Order. If, after that, there is a continuous display of disobedience, and if the law is in operation, then the law must take its course. The Minister would be well advised to ask the officer of his Department to give lectures to the fishermen in the various fishing districts and endeavour to enlighten them, as far as possible, as to why they should not take small fish from the seas—fish which are useless — but to leave them until they grow bigger and are more valuable.

Mr. Corish

They would not want a long lecture on that.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Whilst they might not want a long lecture on that, there seem to be numerous complaints in regard to that matter. The fishermen themselves should know the position without having it explained to them, I am glad to say that the majority of fishermen realise the position and realise that this Order is in their own interest. They realise that it is better that the small fish should be left in the seas until they are properly developed when they would yield a greater financial return. I am aware that there are areas in which the fishermen are doing their best to comply with that Order but infortunately it is not always the position.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Did the Deputy give any lecture at all when he was Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I did. I can assure the Deputy I did my very best I hope the present Minister for Lands will endeavour to continue lecturing. I believe it would be much better to lecture the fishermen that institute legal proceedings against them and have them fined for something which they may not properly understand, in the absence of the desired lecture. It is true to say that they realise that this Order is in their own interests. Therefore, I feel an even greater measure of co-operation is required between the officers of the Department and the fishermen.

When we come to examine the question of fish as a diet, we must ask ourselves a number of questions. In the first place, we are not a very good fish-eating country. I do not know the reason for that. I suppose the real reason is that at one time in our history fish was available for three meals a day. The reason why fish is not now consumed in great quantities in this country is because of our high standard of living. I feel that, with mutton, beef and bacon available, our people prefer meat to fish. They feel that fish is either for the real fast day or only for the poor who cannot afford mutton, beef and bacon.

It will be difficult to increase considerably the consumption of fish in our country. The housewife wants to be assured that the fish will be fresh and that it will be available in regular supply. It is not enough just to have fish available on Spy Wednesday or on Good Friday or during the seven weeks of Lent.

If we are to encourage fish more frequently on our menus, we shall have to ensure more regular supplies of good tradicting the Minister and of stating quality fish at the right price—and I deliberately say "at the right price". Probably what has turned a lot of our people against fish-eating is the memory that, in the past, fish was sold on the side-walk by a fish dealer who dipped his hand into one of the old fish boxes, took out a fish, wrapped a piece of newspaper around it, handed it it you and told you to go home with it, after you had paid for it. We must bear in mind that our landings to-day are sufficient to meet our present full requirements. That will give the House some idea of the vast increase in our landings in recent years.

If fish is to be made available in all our towns and cities at a right price, it must arrive there in a fit state for human consumption. I believe we have reached a pint where it is necessary to set up a number of depots all over the country. Most country towns have fridges where ice cream is kept. I often wondered why it would not be possible to have at least one fridge in every town where a plentiful supply of fish could be kept. I do not see why it should not be possible in a town of 2,000 population to have 300 or 400 people consume fish. If an all-out drive were made, I believe it would succeed. About this time 12 months we had a fish week and an "eat more fish" campaign. I do not know if any more fish was eaten as a result.

One of the reasons why fish is not usually included in our diet is that the housewife included in our diet is that the of cleaning certain types of fish. Another reason, I am sorry to say, is that they don not now how to do it. I was present at the demonstration given by Mr. Phillip Harben in this city not so long ago. He is the well-known chief of television fame in England. He provided——

Mr. Haughey

He was brought over by private enterprise.

Mr. T. Lynch

What is wonderful about that?

An Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Mr. Harben, in the course of his demonstration, provided many different and very delicious dishes of fish. The Minister would be well advised to enter into consultation with the Minister for Education and endeavour as far as possible to have classes in the various technical schools dealing with the cooking and cleaning of fish and other essential foods. No doubt the Minister for Education would only be too pleased to assist in every way in that respect. There certainly is a very keen desire for such education. If it were made available, many girls and many housewives wold attend because they would get valuable hints in regard to the many delicious fish dishes——

Mr. P.J. Burke

Repeat that five times now.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I am sure the Minister will think worth his while to make inquiries and see if it is possible to have anything done in that respect.

I know there are others anxious to contribute to this debate and I do not intend to prolong it to any great extent. However, I believe it is right that we should look at the fishing industry in the past and compare it with the position to-day. It is difficult to understand, in a country surrounded by the sea, that the fishing industry is not developed to a much greater extent and that more people are not gaining livelihood from it. I have the returns of the number of boats and men directly engaged in the fishing industry from 1819 to 1830. That is a long time ago. In 1819 there were 294 decked vessels fishing and 421 half-decked vessels. In the same year, there were 44,891 men gaining alivelihood from the fishing industry. In the year 1830, we had 345 decked vessels fishing and almost 800 half-decked vessels. We had 9,000 row boats fishing as well. In that year we had 64,771 people employed fishing in this country.

That gives an indication of the fact that fish was practically the main diet of our people in those days. That was because we had such a low standard of living. When the fishing industry was capable of employing such a number in 1819, when there was no such ting as the modern fishing boats and equipment of to-day, it is difficult to understand how only a little over 2,000 fishermen are employed at the present time.

Mr. Dillon

One explanation being that the boys in 1819 got a penny a day and the boys in 1957 got £ a day or sometimes £2.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Nevertheless, it is important that we should reflect on the fact. Whether they were getting a penny a day or £1 a day, they were getting their livelihood from fishing. I think that the fishing industry in this country is quite capable of carrying many more men and that greater encouragement should be given in that regard.

The main fact is that sufficient capital has not been put into the development of the fishing industry here. There is no use in tinkering with the fishing industry. Either ut money into it, develop it properly or scrap it. Tinkering will get us no place. I wold like to call the Minister's attention to this fact. Mr. William C. Miller, Marine and Aviation Surveyor, San Diego, California, pointed out at the International Fishing industry in the United States. Between 45 and 50 per cent. of this amount is in boats and gear, the remainder being devoted to operations ashore. Floating equipment is, therefore, the most important part of the industry. No doubt this is also true of fishing industries in other nations.

The floating equipment in this country probably represents more than half the cost of the national investment in the industry. It shows, too, the importance that Mr. Miller or California attached to this when in the course of his address in 1953 he said that ten billion dollars were provided for the fishing industry in the United States. I hope that the fishing industry here will have a greater prospect of prosperity through grater expenditure. I feel that it is of great importance just like agriculture, in which we must sink money in order to have the industry properly developed and production increased. If we are to expand, we must be prepared to sink money.

I should like to refresh the memory of the Minister for lands in regard to the opinion expressed by fishermen or the salmon levy abolished by the inter-Party Government and which he has restored. I remember meeting a deputation of some 40 salmon fishermen at Cromane, County Kerry. They were unanimous in asking for the abolition of 2d. per lb. levy o salmon exports. On that occasion, Deputies of all Parties were present and none was more loud in his appeal for the removal of the levy than the local Fianna Fail Deputy. I can remember one Fianna Fáil Deputy calling me outside the door of the room and asking if there was any hope of giving as assurance to the salmon fishermen that the levy was to be abolished. He said that it was a hindrance, that the fishermen objected to it and that whilst there it was a hindrance, that the fishermen objected to it and that whilst there had been appeals for exports, it was crippling exports and he looked upon it as a form of theft from the fishermen. I was quite satisfied with the case that was put up to me at Cromane and also at other parts of the country.

The report of the meeting which I addressed at Cromane in September, 1954—I am quoting from the Irish Independent—was as follows:—

"Patrick Casey, salmon and shellfish dealer, Cromane, acting as spokesman for the fishermen, pointed out to Mr. Flanagan that the levy of 2d. per lb. on all fish exported meant a tax of £8 to £12 on each licensed boat during the salmon fishing season when earnings of each fisherman were approximately £40 to £50."

That was the view expressed to me by Mr. Casey, and the deputation, who described the levy as a form of theft and regarded it with great disgust. I should like to hear the view of Mr. Casey now that the levy has been restored, because at that time there was very keen opposition to it.

The same opposition came from many other parts of the country. I also met a deputation at Galway and again their request was unanimous that the levy should be removed. I can recollect giving an assurance at the time to the Waterford Board of Conservators, and I gave it with the authority of the Minister for Agriculture, that thought the levy was being removed, it did not mean that the board would get less in grants.

I feel that the Minister has acted against the best interests of the salmon fishing industry and in a way that is entirely contrary to the wishes of those engaged in that industry. In his speech, he tells us that a new record of salmon were taken by rod and line by a new record number of 7,495 licensed anglers. When I went into the Fisheries Branch again, I found that my predecessor there was about to have the salmon rod licences increased. Again the inter-Party Government hit that proposal on the head. I would ask the Minister, even though he has reimposed the levy—to my mind, unwisely —that he would at least turn a blind eye to the former Fianna Fáil proposal for increasing the rod licences for salmon anglers.

The Minister also made reference to the fact that it is proposed to inquire into the location of suitable fishing grounds around our coast. I agree entirely with that. It is most important that inquiries be made by the officers of the Fisheries Branch to ascertain through those tests where the best and most suitable grounds around the coast are. Research is very important in any work and there are very few Departments of State which are anxious to make progress which have not got at their disposal certain research facts. I entirely agree with the Minister that in the fishing industry there is nothing more important than having a certain amount of research work carried out.

I notice the Minister also made reference to the fact that test fishing for particular classes of fish should be carried out. He included in those various classes of fish porbeagle shark and tunny for which a market exists abroad. I do not know if I am right, but I think they are a kind of dogfish. I wonder if the Minister could tell us what he will do with this dogfish and in what form it is to be exported, as well as the quantities it is proposed to export and the expenditure involved in having the tests carried out for dogfish. Certainly there is no market here for dogfish. Possibly the Minister could enlighten us a to what he proposes to do with the porbeagle shark and tunny. He would not have made that statement without having gone into the matter and I am sure his officials have enlightened him on the matter. We should like the Minister to enlighten us as to the export markets he has in mind for dogfish.

Finally, I want the Minister to bear in mind that we are all as anxious as he is to see a prosperous fishing industry. The fishing industry is a very important one. It is one in which families living along our coast have made their livelihood all down through the years. A market is available and I hope every effort will be made to bring about a grater measure of prosperity in this industry. Lastly, the Minister got the Fisheries Branch in a good state. I hope that he will hand it back in an equally good state.

Mr. Faulkner

We are dealing here with what should be one of our greatest wealth-producing assets but which is, relatively speaking, one of our most neglected industries. Fisheries in a country like ours ought to be second only to agriculture, and a good second at that. There may be many reasons why the industry has not prospered as it should, possibly historical and economic reasons, and it would not be of much benefit now to examine the reasons for its lack of prosperity. It must be accepted, however, that it has been neglected and we should start from there to build up a prosperous industry now, an industry which in these days of economic difficulty would help us along the road to economic recovery.

It is a strange fact that we are not a fish-eating nation. Faulty marketing and faulty distribution must bear the major share of the blame for that condition, allied to the fact that our fishermen have no real guarantee in relation to prices. Neither have they a guarantee that they will be able to sell their catch, despite what Deputy O.J. Flanagan said the other night on that point. This is not to be taken as a criticism of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, a body for which I have the greatest respect. This is simply a statement of fact. We had a typical example last year of faulty distribution when boatloads of fish had to be dumped in Killybegs at a time when prices prevailing on the Dublin market were at their highest.

If the housewife decides to have fish on the menu, it is absolutely essential that there should be a regular supply of fish available. If the housewife cannot get a regular supply it is not likely that she will use fish at all. Even in the coastal districts and those adjoining them the supply of fish is very bad.

There are a few suggestions I should like to make which might help in remedying this situation. First of all, we should ascertain if the boats around our coast are capable of ensuring a constant supply of fish. It has been stated here that they can and are giving that supply. Possibly when Deputy Flanagan referred to that, he had in mind the quantity of fish consumed at the moment. If we expand the consumption of fish at home, I believe that we shall get an increased supply and it it would be a good thing if the Minister would ascertain now whether our present fishing fleet is capable of supplying an increased consumption. A survey should be made to find out if the boats used are those best suited to the locality in which they operate or whether larger or smaller boats would prove more satisfactory.

I suggest that a market be set up in towns around the coast or close to the coast. For instance, Cork could serve the south, south-west and south-east. A port in Donegal or Galway could serve the needs of the west and the north-west. It has been suggested that such markets are not possible because the fishermen will insist on sending their fish to the market in which they will get the best price. I suggest that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should enter into competition with private firms in these different towns for a time at any rate in order to ensure a reasonable price to the fishermen. An effort was made in Cork a few years ago to set up a fish market there. That fish market was broken because only a couple of firms engaged in buying the fish and, instead of competing with one another, they simply decided that one firm could have the fish to-day and another firm to-morrow. The result was the price of fish fell and the fishermen were forced back into sending the fish to the Dublin market again. It is the height of absurdity to have fish taken in Cork sent to Dublin for marketing and, in many instances, subsequently sent back again almost to the point at which they were landed.

In order to cope with a glut of fish the deep freeze system should be fully adopted, particularly in relation to whiting and herring. That would help to ensure regular supplies. While it is not desirable that there should be State intervention in the industry, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should step in and set up depots in the inland towns to ensure that the people living inland have regular supplies of fish. It is at the moment almost impossible to get fish even close to the coast. These depots could be opened for an experimental period. It would be preferable to have that done by private enterprise but, if private enterprise is not prepared to take the initiative, then An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should step in for a time at any rate and set up these depots.

At the moment the fishermen are engaged in prawn fishing along the coast. That brings in a very good return even though the hours are exceptionally long. The market at the moment is confined to Britain. An effort should be made by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, or whoever is responsible, to get new markets on the Continent. Prawns are a delicacy in France and it ought to be possible to find a market for them in other continental countries.

When we have ascertained whether our boats will give us the supply of fish we need, we can then engage on a large-scale advertising campaign. I am sure such a campaign would lead to an increased consumption of fish.

Recently I asked the Minister a question with regard to Clogherhead pier. The Minister's reply drew a supplementary question from Deputy Dillon. The question and the answer will be found at column 576 of Volume 162 of the Official Report. It is as follows:—

"Mr. Faulkner asked the Minister for Lands if he is aware of the dangerous condition of the pier at Clogherhead, County Louth, and if he will state what action has Department is taking to protect the fishing fleet, which includes four Bord Iascaigh Mhara trawlers.

Mr. Childers: The pier at Clogherhead, County Louth, is in the charge of the Louth County Council, which is responsible for its maintenance and repair. The council has intimated to my Department that the structure is believed to be now unsound and that there may be need for complete reconstruction. In view of the fact that there is also a local demand for imporvement, as distinct from repair, of the pier, a general inspection of the harbour conditions has been arranged for and will be carried out as early as practicable.

Mr. Dillon: Can the Minister not reassure Deputy Faulkner as to the safety of the four Bord Iascaigh Mhara trawlers, inasmuch as only one of them is fit to put to sea and none of them, except that one, has even seen the Clogherhead pier for the last two years as the engine fell out of one, the engine stuck in another and the third is unfit to put to sea?"

That supplementary question is the greatest nonsense ever heard in this House and that is saying a lot. There are in Clogherhead five trawlers in perfect condition. The trawlers referred to by the Deputy never came near Clogherhead. Nobody there ever heard of them, but I can assure the Deputy that not alone are these trawlers in Clogherhead in perfect condition but some of them are almost new. I am afraid I must say that if that is an example of the knowledge of the Minister who was responsible for fisheries, it is no wonder the fishermen lost all faith in the Coalition.

Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh dos na báid iascaireachta iasachta atá ag teacht isteach in ár bhfarraigí agus ag baint an slí bheatha de chuid mhór dár n-iascairí. Mholfainn don Aire, mar thús, go mba cheart eiteallán den chineál gur féidir leis teacht anuas ar an fharraige a cheannach chun aire a thabhairt dár límistéirí iascaigh. Mholfainn fosta nuair a fhághann siad an scéala san ceann-áras i mBaile Átha Cliath go bhfuil ceann des na báid iasachta seo in ár bhfarraigí go mba cheart scéala a chur amach ón cheann-áras don bhád cosanta, an corvette, agus go mba cheart an scéala sin a chur amach i nGaeilge agus nach gcuirfeadh an bád cosanta scéala ar bith ar ais go dtí an ceann-áras, mar thiocfadh leis an bhád iasachta a fhios a bheith acu go raibh an cómhrá ar siúl agus rachadh siad as ár bhfarraigí.

Taobh amuigh de sin, sílim nach bhfuil na fínéala atá a gcur ar chaptaeiní na mbád iasachta seo mór go leor. Bhí cás againn sa bhaile go dtáinig bád iasachta isteach agus gur beireadh air. Nuair a tugadh os comhair na cúirte an captaen dúirt sé leis an ghiúistís gur chaill sé na heangacha a bhí acu. Bhí trua ag an ghiúistís dó agus níor gearradh ach fíneáil £5 air. Bhí na heangacha an tamall uilig faoin fharraige agus iad ceangailte le dan. Nuair a bhí an bád ag dul amach arís rug siad ar an eangach agus rinne siad iascaireacht agus is féidir liom a rá go bhfuair siad i bhfad níos mó ná luach £5 d'iasc.

Tá iontaoibh ag muintir na tíre as an Aire úr agus súil acu go mbeidh feabhas mór ar iascaireacht nuair a éireos sé as oifig, má éiríonn sé as riamh.

Mr. Dillon

I think Deputy Faulkner has not frequently intervened in our discussions here before and, therefore, I propose to proceed with forbearance. When he knows as much about fisheries as I know he will realise that the term "trawler" is habitually applied to the kind of vessel that was owned by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, not to the boats that are on hire purchase.

Mr. Faulkner

That is the local use of the term.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon must be allowed to speak without interruptions.

Mr. Dillon

He will be allowed to speak all right and he will not say anything rough on this occasion. THe boats to which I referred were the three so-called trawlers in the ownership of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. The boats to which Deputy Faulkner is referring are the boats which are on hire purchase in which connection, I am happy to think, I put most of the new ones into the area to which he referred.

I think I am correct in saying that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have taken steps to provide fish markets outside the City of Dublin and, in fact, on their initiative there is a fish auction at Killybegs at eh present time. As the Deputy said, there was an effort to maintain a fish market in Cork but it was not attended with a very great measure of success. We shall hear from Deputy Haughey, Deputy Faulkner's colleague, an expression of dismay that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have concerned themselves so energetically as they have in the marketing of fish, and he will say that his ought to be confined to private enterprise. That is the dilemma in which An Bord Iascaigh Mhara frequently finds itself. It is tries to help the fishermen Deputy Haughey denounces it, and if it tries to stand aside and allow private enterprise to undertake the function of marketing, fore, it has the difficult task of doing what was necessary for the protection of the interest of the fishermen without illegimitately trespassing on the sphere of private enterprise in marketing.

So long as I was Minister for Agriculture and responsible for this, the rule was that the predominant interest was that of the men who caught the fish and whatever was required to be done in respect of marketing or distribution to ensure that they got a fair return for their fish would be done and that those who lived out of the fishermen by providing marketing facilities through private enterprise were welcome to do so, so long as that did not involve a claim that they were entitled to pay less to the fishermen for the fish than the fishermen could get if they were marketing it themselves co-operatively or through An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

I want to make certain observations and a specific reference to the statement made by the Minister in introducing this Estimate. First, I want to refer to the observation which he made and which is recorded one page 11 of the script which he was kind enough to circulate:—

"It seems to me that as far as the Government was concerned for long intervals since 1947 no continuous guiding influence with immediate executive control and full power existed in the Fisheries Branch—this immediate control will now be exercised."

I think that was rather an offensive reflection on the administration of his predecessors, but I do not deny that if a Minister desires to be acrimonious, it is becoming and reasonable in the course of vigorous Parliamentary debate that he should so reflect upon the performance of the previous Government; but it seems to met violate the ordinary courtesies of Parliament if the Minister feels himself free to get up and say in public in Dáil Eireann about his won colleague, who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that he was gravely at fault in his administration of the Fisheries Branch. There are certain decencies ordinarily observed in Parliament from which I think this observation was a grave departure.

I do not quite know what the Minister means by this. I know that when I was responsible, in association with my colleague, Deputy Olive Flanagan, who was them Parliamentary Secretary, our purpose was to leave Bord Iascaigh Mhara as free as it was possible to leave them, subject to certain overriding directions as to general policy. Do I understand from the present Minister that that policy is to be departed from and that he proposes to control the day-to-day administration of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara? I want to warn him that, if he has that in mind, he is making a very great. mistake and in so for as he seems to miss immediate executive control in the Fisheries Branch, I want to assure him that that policy was to followed quite deliberately by me, by Deputy Oliver Flanagan and, I presume by Deputy Bartley, when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and responsible for the Department to which the Minister refers.

In that context, I want to raise two very specific matters. It is now proposed, and the Minister has taken the occasion if introducing the Estimate to announce it, to re-impose the export levy in salmon. It is calculated that that export levy will yield from £12,000 to £14,000 a year. The history of that levy is this: It was brought into this House originally on the misrepresentation that it was designed to raise money to supplement the resources of the boards of conservators. The fact is it was used so long as it was levied for the purpose of relieving the Exchequer of the contribution that the Exchequer had made therefore to the boards of conservators for the better protection of our game fish rivers.

When we came into office in 1954, we cancelled that levy and I challenge the Minister to-day to show the House that in any year subsequent to 1954 the boards of conservators received less by way of assistance than they would have received had there been no Exchequer contribution but had the whole proceeds of the salmon levy been diverted to the boards of conservators.

Deputies may ask:"Why did you cancel it?" One of the reasons why we cancelled it has been given by Deputy Oliver Flanagan, that it constituted a very serious burden in those who were exporting salmon, but quite apart from and over and above that, there is here a vital principle at stake. If we exhort all and sundry in this country to redouble their efforts in production in order to ensure that there should be an exportable surplus, it is a catastrophic decision in respect of any such exportable surplus, to fix all concerned with notice that if and when they achieve that export, the Government will immediately put a levy upon it in order to divert a substantial part of the profits to be derived from the export to the Treasury.

I ask Deputies to consider this. The Minister for Finance has introduced his Budget and has announced that he proposes to relieve manufacturers from all tax on profits derived from export and in the same Budget he proposes to levy 2d. a lb., not on profits, but on the cost of all salmon exported. I beg of Deputies to face the implications of this.

I know well the reason for this announcement. The Treasury has insisted on it. I absolutely refused to yield on that matter because I said: "Here is your danger—we are begging the people to increase the export of butter and of cattlel, of bacon, of pigs, of sheep and of wool. If you announce that the moment anyone in agriculture or fishing succeeds in producing that export, without any subsidy at all, you will levy on the proceeds of that export and at the same time not only forbear from levying on any industrial export but exonerate the industrial exporter from any tax in the profit he makes, how can you export people in agriculture or fishing not to say:"What on earth is the use? If we stand for a levy of 2d. to-day, it will be 4d. tomorrow,' " and mark these words well, because here is the vital principle—"if the Treasury can get away with the proposition that exports of this kind can be levied for the relief of the Exchequer, why not levy cattle, of which awe exported 250,000 in the furst three months of this year?' "

Remember, every salmon that goes out may be worth 50/-. Every bullock that goes out is worth £50 or £60. Every sheep is worth £6 to £7. If the principle is once accepted that the Treasury is entitled to raise revenue for general purposes from a levy on agricultural of fishery exports, so certainly as we are sitting in this Chamber, that principle will be quoted hereafter to justify levies on other exports. That is no numinous ghost that I am raising; that proposal was made in Seanad Éireann by the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party in Seanand Éireann.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of a tax on cattle does not arise on this Estimate.

Minister for Lands (Mr. Childers)

There is no comparison whatever.

Mr. Dillon

I solemnly assure you, and I have experience of this, if the principle of a levy on exports is ever admitted by this House, you will get a situation arising such as arose in India, Ceylon and many other countries in the world, in which the thin end of the wedge was inserted, and once it was accepted, the whole system of levying exports became a very substantial part of the revenue of the State. You have seen it yourselves. The Government of India levied tea. The Government if Ceylon levied tea. You will find that every Government in difficulty, once faced with the possibility if relieving their financial difficulty by levying exports, if they can once persuade Parliament to accept the principle, will turn more and more to that source.

The only ministerial office I ever held, or wanted to hold, in this country was the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries because I believed that these were the sources of the nation's potential wealth. I solemnly warn this House that if we accept the principle of levying exports we shall deal the great agricultural industry and the potentially great fishing industry a death blow. Those are the reasons why we cancelled the levy on the exports of salmon and insisted that in so far as the available resources of the conservators required to be supplemented they should be supplemented from treasury grants and that enabled us to see that the boards of conservators had all the resources that they required. I think the Minister will be obliged to confess that in no year since 1954 did they receive less than they would have received had the total yield of a 2d. levy been made available to them.

That is one fundamental issue I want to raise in this Estimate; I want to inform the House that I shall fight this matter to a division. I do not want the Minister to misunderstand me; I do not expect him to perform miracles in the first three months of office, but this is the issue based on principles I have already outlined, and I should like the House to know the issue on which the division is being challenged. It would be unreasonable to challenge a division on the question if general administration because, as I say, the Minister is entitled to have time to look around and it will be time enough this time next year to challenge a division if it should be necessary on the merits or demerits if his administration in the meantime.

There is another matter of fundamental importance. I am proceeding now on the assumption that all Deputies in the House who are interested in this problem can in some degree approach it with political objectivity. There is another great principle involved in a phrase employed by the Minister when introducing his Estimate. The Minister said:—

"If I find that 100 men can fish twice as much newly found fish discovered in hitherto unfished waters as 400 men could by using antiquated methods, I know that more people will be employed in Ireland by employing the former alternative. I am told that in fact we can expand, modernise and go further out to sea without danger to the inshore fishing interest."

I want the House to note these words well because here is joined this fundamental issue: is the fishing industry to be based on the owner-fisherman or on the large anonymous corporation operating fleets of steam trawlers from our shores? I want to make this quite clear to the House. Not one but at least seven propositions were made to me when I was Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries that I should authorise Norwegian, Finnish and Danish companies to come here and with their own capital establish large fleets of steam trawlers operating from an Irish port. I turned down every one of them because I know if you establish in any port in Ireland a large corporation operating steam trawlers from our shores the result will be that the catch of these trawlers will flood the domestic market with the immediate consequence that the owner-fisherman will cease to be an economic unit.

I think Deputies forget that we have an artificial price structure for fish here. Deputies should realise that. We have deliberately maintained that artificial price structure. We have asked consumers to pay more their fish than they would otherwise have to pay if they were free to bring fish from any part of the world. We did that with our eyes wide open because we knew that there were hundreds of families along the south, west and north-west coasts who, if they were divorced from the fishing industry, would find it impossible to live.

We wanted to make it possible for them to live, but does anybody seriously suppose that if a wealthy corporation from Grimsby or Copenhagen or from Norway or Sweden sets up here to operate a steam trawling industry that we should ask our people to continue to pay the artificial price for fish which they are at present paying, in order to provide profits for such corporations? certainly I would not. I suppose I am the least protectionist Deputy in the House and I try to take the same view about these matters, but I ask myself if you impose a tariff and erect an artificial price structure and ask consumers here to pay more than they would otherwise pay for a specific commodity, what are you getting in return for it? I think there is no artificial price structure, no tariff or quota system operating in this country at the moment from which we get a better value than that which applies to the fish market.

I do not deny that in the early stages there were periods of shortage of fish. There were difficulties, and consumers occasionally had ground for complaint, but at the same time I remember we have put to sea 18 new boats every one of which represents a fisherman who owns his own boat and employs his neighbours, every one of which delivers fresher fish to consumers here than any consumer in Great Britain ever gets.

I want to make this point. Let us get out of our heads the old fashioned idea that our fishermen can appropriately be described to-day as "inshore fishermen." That day is gone. The boats these men are operating to-day are quite capable of staying at sea for days on end, and they do. These boats are quite capable of going 40 or 50 miles from the cost of the country if that is a suitable arena in which to fish. These are not inshore fishermen in the old sense of the word. They are not trawlers that go to sea for three weeks, catching fish for 14 days on the way out, packing it in ice in the hold, then fishing on the fishing beds four or five hundred miles away and then packing the catch in ice and fishing all the way back, landing some of their fish on the market three weeks old; they are fisherman who go to sea and sometimes the fish may be three or four days caught before it is put on the market, but it is the freshest fish supplied to any market in Ireland or Great Britain. It is fish that is being followed by good fishermen in well-equipped boats which can stay at sea for as long as the fishermen care to stay.

Let us get out of our vocabulary this expression "the inshore fishermen". They are inshore no more. But they are not unique in this world. I think I am right in saying that 70 to 80 per cent. of the entire Danish fishing fleet is constituted of exactly the same type of boat we give to our fishermen at the present time.

Let us remember when we talk of installing trawler companies that practically all, if not all, of the 80 boats were built in Irish boatyards which provided employment in Baltimore and in several other remote places in Ireland where there is not alternative employment and which enabled boys who hitherto went abroad as unskilled labourers to get technical training and either to stay at home and get employment here or, if they chose to go abroad, to go as skilled craftsmen who command some of the highest wages at present being paid in any shipyard in England.

So, before the Minister romps after the Fata Morgana of establishing the shipyard industry in this country, let him count the cost, because once that decision is taken, once the situation that will ensue from steam trawlers is established, the small owner-fisherman in this country is gone for all time. I ask anybody who wants to judge of this to go and look at Killybegs to-day and to remember it as it was 15 years ago. Is it worth preserving? Is there something there which in itself is good? Is there evidence of industry, thrift and prosperity there? If we had not our own fishing what would Killybegs look like to-day? Go to Fanny's Bay and look at the boatyard there. It is only a small boatyard with two slips. Ask yourself where else in that area could you get that type of employment for the men working there.

I exhort the Minister before he takes any reckless decision in this sphere to travel further and live longer among those who depend on the fishing industry as at present constituted, and to devote his energies to expanding the existing fleets based on ownership of the boats by the fishermen. The further he goes in that direction the greater service I think he will do to the industry as a whole.

I noticed that in another part of his speech the Minister announced he would survey the fishing grounds. I am inclined to ask myself this question when I hear of a prospect for surveying the fishing grounds: what does he think the fishermen of this country have been doing for the past 50 years? Go and speak to any experienced skipper on any part of our fishing coast and I think he will give you a very shrewd appraisal of where the fishing grounds are and of how best to fish them. I do not know what exactly the Minister has in mind when he speaks of a survey. I should like to have further and better particulars before I demur at orassent to that proposition but I would direct his attention to the results published to-day of an interesting survey by the British Ministry of Fisheries into the location of the herring spawning grounds.

It is odd but true that, though herring have been the common food of men since the drawn of time, up to recently nobody knew where herring spawned. Nobody knew what induced herring to shoal or why they left the coast for years and then returned. I think the same is true of mackerel. One of the difficulties was that you could not discern herring spawn on the bed of the sea. Now this survey shows the spawning grounds of herring, with reasonable certainty, in the waters surrounding these islands. It may transpire from the material gathered in the survey that the availability of herring shoals may be seriously perturbed by improvident fishing over the grounds where the herring spawn.

Up to recent years it had become known that the average age of herring caught was between four and five years. More recently the age has tended to decline to three years. It is suggested this may be associated with undue disturbance of the spawning beds. These beds are mainly constituted of gravel through which rapid currents flow. If our inquiries could be co-ordinated with those of the British Ministry of Fisheries I think useful information of that kind might be obtained and, if necessary, restrictive measures of a reciprocal kind between ourselvesx and the British could be established so that the spawning periods of herring should be protected by controlled fishing if that should be necessary.

I am glad to observe that the Minister has learned the value of the Inland Fisheries Trust and its activities. I hope I am not being unduly captious if I complain about a phrase in the Minister's observations on page 3 of his manuscript. The Minister said:—

"The House will be glad to learn that a large scale scheme of improvement and development of inland fisheries and indeed of angling of all kinds is about to be sponsored by Bord Fáilte in co-operation with the Inland Fisheries Trust."

The minister said: "is about to be sponsored". I notice with administration that since he uttered that phrase his conscience has kept him awake nights and so, when he went to the West yesterday, he made his visit the occasion of saying that this admirable departure was well under way as a result of the efforts of his predecessor, Mr. Dillon, and of Mr. Norton.

I shall not dwell on the ambiguity of page 3 of the Minister's statement dealing with the question of the fishmeal plant. This should interest Deputy Haughey. On that question the Minister said:—

"It was recognised at the time that such pilot scale operations, being in the nature of an experiment, must inevitably result in a loss which would, however, be carried on by the full-scale commercial undertaking which the board would set up in due course. As it happened, however, the path opened by the board is now being followed up by a private firm by which the manufacture of fishmeal on a full commercial basis is expected to commence at Killybegs towards the end of this year."

Now, co-relate that statement with the Minister's subsequent statement on page12 of his manuscript, in which he said:—

"We live under the sway of a pessimistic world where we are told ‘Irish people will eat fish only on Friday'. We imported huge quantities of fishmeal without a murmur for years."

What does the Minister call the proceedings at Killybegs except a very effective mode to put an end to that deplorable situation which did obtain up to 1948, but was then put to rights and has now come to fruition? Deputy Haughey was inclined to doubt that Killybegs was the first fishmeal factory established in the country. He asked what about Ballinasloe.

Mr. Haughey

There are a few others.

Mr. Dillon

Hear me out. I will be bound entirely by the chairman of that firm. I think it is ex-Senator Summerfield who is now chairman of the firm that Deputy Haughey referred to here. I will be bound entirely by his word and if he corrects me, then I am wrong. If he confirms me in this, I have no doubt that Deputy Haughey will sound my praises throughout the land. What does it matter who started it first?

Mr. Haughey

I did not say that. You brought up that issue.

Mr. Dillon

It is a plain fact that the firm at Ballinasloe was established because the big subsidiary of Weavers who had the monopoly of the manufacture of fishmeal in this country were interested only in the export of the raw material. I notified them that if within a certain period, they did not establish a plant here for the processing of that material for home use, I would establish a plant and prohibit the export of the raw material. I then sent for the Industrial Credit Corporation and asked them to take in hand the promotion of such plants. After consultation with certain interests in this country, of which the Deputy, I think, is well aware, a board was formed, the personnel of which caused me to raise my eyebrows. I was not interested in creating jobs for my friends. My interest was centred in the establishment of a factory to produce fish and bone meal in this country, and so was born the constitution of a board, the members of which, in the political context, could not certainly be regarded as my friends. I do regard some of them in the personal context as personal friends.

They did attempt as a subsidiary activity to promote shark meat production, but they had great difficulties. They did process a limited quantity of herrings, but the plan throughout, as Deputy Flanagan pointed out, was that fishmeal plants ought to be located at fishing ports. They should be primarily designed to handle surplus fish that would otherwise be put back into the sea and there would be a terrible handicap on a firm established to process fishmeal operation from a place like Ballinasloe. They might be bale to conduct that part of their business as an ancillary activity. The firm at Ballinasloe did what was right because their prime function was to meet the needs for the provision of plant for the meal which at that time was very scarce, and which at the present time is highly profitable.

Again, I have cause to make complaint here. The Minister said:—

"We have a good fishing tradition in certain areas, but we have no education directed towards fishing as a vocation. I believe we should have that and that we must have it, if we want to produce skippers who can build up our fishing industry. I hope soon to be able to announce that facilities will be provided for acquiring nautical training for fishermen, so that none but qualified skippers will be eligible for boats under the hire purchase scheme operated by Bord Iascaigh Mhara in time to come."

I ask Deputies to turn to page 11 of the Minister's statement where he said:—

"Included in the number of boats competed or nearing completion at 31st March, 1957, were four 56½ feet vessels commissioned under this scheme which is financed from the National Development Fund. Two of them went into commission in 1956; a third has been since completed and is being used at Galway as a training ship for prospective skippers——"

Am I unduly captious if I say that those two paragraphs appear to be self-contradictory? One says there is no provision for training skippers and the next says one of the 56½ feet boats is at present being used for that purpose. I went to Killybegs myself for the launching of it and two skippers from Donegal, one of them from Gola, were on board. We got an officer of the Irish navy to take it to sea to teach them navigation. They were both highly skilled fishermen, but these boats had reached such a stage of development that they could not properly be taken to sea without a trained navigator on board. The Department of industry and Commerce would not allow them to go to sea without a properly qualified navigator on board.

We established a training school for fishermen and it is clear that those who sent to sea would be watched carefully to see that they got from their period at sea the qualifications necessary to make them skilled navigators and fishing masters, so that this in turn would qualify them for new boats in the future, according to seniority and suitability, and allowing for the allocation of boats to be made.

I think the Minister is facing false premises if he allows himself to be deceived by the claptrap which he appears to have adopted on page 8 of his manuscript, when he says:—

"Exports amounted in value to just over £1,000,000 of which salmon accounted for some £557,000 worth, with next in order of importance, periwinkles at £119,000 and herring at over £64,000. As against this, imports amounted to approximately £700,000 including tinned and bottled fish to the amount of £517,000 and cured fish, £151,000."

The Minister always assumes the exterior of almost frankness. I would suggest to the House that he feels a duty to say what he believes, whatever the consequences, and he certainly leads me to believe that is true, but them I think back to the Belmullet speech and to the school he was brought up in and I begin to wonder if somebody else has been studying Machiavelli. When I read about bottled fish, I do not know what bottled fish is. Deputy Flanagan never heard of it. Did anybody hear of bottled fish?

Dr. Hillery

Goldfish.

Mr. Dillon

I do not believe the Minister is concerned to establish a goldfish industry in this country.

Mr. Childers

It is merely a clarification of the imports.

Mr. Dillon

When the Minister makes a statement——

Mr. Childers

Canned fish is the important one.

Mr. Dillon

When he talks of bottled fish, I am quite prepared to meet him on the basis of honest anxiety about these problems. The truth of the matter is that it is codology. It is put in for window dressing. I am not complaining. A little codology is excusable from time to time froma Minister who is trying to prepare a new and original sounding statement for the Dáil, but he ought to put in parenthesis afterwards the word "codology."

Mr. Childers

Bottled shrimps.

Mr. Dillon

I was never let down by my Department in my life. Whenever I got on to the end of a limb, they were always able to come to my assistance and if it was not bottled shrimps it was fish paste or something. It is no use offering something else to a person who wants a little bottle of anchovy paste.

Mr. Haughey

Caviare.

Mr. Dillon

Not at all. I will tell you what he wants it for. He wants to suppress the flavours of the margarine the wants to buy, since he cannot afford butter. A little of this bottled fish goes a long way, I recommend it to the Deputy if he has domestic troubles on the exchequer front. We all know what tinned fish is. It is termed salmon and sardines. Tinned salmon is aa particular product mainly of Canadian and Japanese origin. There is nothing we produce which approximately corresponds to that commodity. It is perfectly true that when the levies came to be arranged, a thing like tinned salmon would at once come under consideration and a levy put on it as being an unessential thing. If people insist on getting it, it was a thing they could legitimately be asked to pay a substantial levy upon, if our balance of payments position required such a restriction; but there is no use pretending that any product of our fishing industry taken the place of tinned salmon.

If you are going to exclude canned salmon, it is the equivalent of excluding a thing like port wine or something like that which everybody does not chose to drink or eat, but which a great many people like to take on occasion. I think you are entitled to exclude something of that kind if you are dealing with a grave balance of payments situation. It is carrying things to too great a length to prohibit the availability of an amenity of that kind simply for the protection of our fishing industry, when, in fact, a proper study of the problem will reveal that 90 per cent. of the people who are stopped from enjoying the bit of canned salmon will not eat fish.

Because our fish is the product of cooking, the whole attraction of canned salmon is that it does not require to be cooked. It is a variety of fish that does not exist in this hemisphere. It is what is properly called the shock-eyed salmon and is a variety of fish which does not exist here, but abounds upon the Pacific coast in America, Canada and Japan. You are chasing illusions if you think that by stopping canned salmon you are going to create an additional market for fish. You may increase the market for meat paaste or brawn or something of that kind— some alternative cold dish that does not require cooking—but you are not going to divert that market into fish and it is an illusion to think you will. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter before he becomes obsessed with the idea that there is an alternative market for fish available. There might be an alternative market for brawn or tongue, but you will not have the kind of fish, herring, mackerel and demersal fish, the market for which we wish to expand here and abroad.

I want to say a word on the matter referred to by Deputy Flanagan. It is well the House should know what the position is. When I was in office from 1948-51, there were three trawlers being operated into the City of Dublin. I came to the conclusion that the operation of those trawlers benefited only certain individual firms which were able to enjoy a preferential position in a highly protected market. I thought it was wholly unfair and the only basis upon which such operations should be continued at all would be that all the fish coming in on those boats should be made available on the basis of complete equality for all those who dealt in fish. When that argument was still going on, I went out of office.

I am not going into all the details of the ancient history connected with that argument. Very shortly afterwards, these three boats were disposed of and we were then in the position that all the fish were brought in by the owner-fishermen. Years ago, away back in 1930, a Fianna Fáil Minister for Fisheries bought trawlers and sought to operate them. After sustaining staggering losses, the trawlers were disposed of and the experiment was wound up, but that traditional argument has gone on ever since.

The theme was that the owner-fishermen were not bringing enough fish to supply the domestic market and the fish wholesalers in whom, I think, Deputy Haughey takes a special interest, always made the case that they ought to be allowed to import from Great Britain whatever quantity of fish was required to bridge the gap. Successive Ministers for Fisheries said: "No; if we are to trade on a highly protected market, that differential of supplies should be brought in by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and if there is any profit over and above operating expenses, it should be put in a special fund for the promotion of fish eating in Ireland." That was done.

When we left office in 1954, another school of thought was then advanced. We were told that we should not bring in the marginal fish that the market might require from time to time from Great Britain. We should equip An Bord Iascaigh Mhara with larger boats than the owner fishermen normally used, send these boats to sea and let them bring in extra fish and fill the gap from the catch of these boats. I never believed that would work because when you brought in the fish with those boats, ther would be too much fish and when there was not enough fish, those boats either would not be sea and their produce would not be available to fill the gap.

I do not want to be unduly critical. I know Deputy Bartley was convinced of the wisdom of his attempt and at the time it was not easy to pick up the kind of boat he had in mind, but what happened was that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, under his direction, bought these quasi-trawlers in Germany. I think they probably took every reasonable precaution they could take at the time to see that the boats were seaworthy and were operational. Seaworthy, I think, they certainlly were, but operational they certainly were not.

Defects appeared in the engines at once. There were then confronted with the further difficulty that it was hoped to operate these boats from Killybegs or Galway. However, they all had diesel engines. I think they ran into the sang at once that no fitter could be found in Galway or Killybegs confident to deal with these extremely complicated diesel engines which were of German design. No fitter in the country, even though he was familiar with the relatively few diesel engines that there are in fishing boats here, was fit to handle them. If anything went wrong, a fitter had to be brought down from Dublin, if such could be found, and sometimes, when he came, he could not deal with the situation. Therefore, these boats were brought to fish at Dublin in the hope that the diesel fitting and engineering resources in the city, if anything went wrong, would put it right. Those hopes were dashed. One ship engine was a wreck; the second would be little better; and the third, I think, kept reasonably at sea.

I think Deputies would be entitled to say to me and to Deputy Flanagan: "Why did you not scrap them?" I will tell you—and I stated this on my Estimate. You will note that, as a Government, we do not act like obedient children and always do what our economics tell us to do. We regard ourselves as charged with the very solemn task of government. I have not the slightest doubt that, from the point of view of strict economics, I should have directed that those boats be scrapped at once and that I would have saved the State money if I had done so. However, it I had, nothing would have persuaded Deputy Bartley or any of his colleagues that I had not done it for spite. Cross your heart and hope to die, is that not true?

Mr. Haughey

It was lack of moral courage on your part.

Mr. Dillon

I think, rather, it was the wisdom which I hope Deputy Haughey will acquire after being here for some time. You must not only do right in some cases, but appear to do right. One of the supreme rules of all courts of appeal in this country is that you must not only do justice but you must be seen to do justice.

Mr. Haughey

Who is Machiavellian now?

Mr. Dillon

That is not Machiavellian —that is sound principle of government. You must be peculiarly solicitous for the feelings of a minority. When any Party goes into opposition, it is on the watch for fear the incoming majority will ruthlessly trample on its right and do things for the sake of gratuitous effect. I said here—I may be wrong; I appreciate that I am not infallible—"It seems to me that this whole plan is misconceived and a mistake but we are going to operate it and give it a full run to see if we are wrong and if Deputy Bartley is right." I can say perfectly conscientiously that we gave those boats a full fair run for their money. It was not until last December or January that I finally sought the Chairman of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and said: "I think you have done your best with these boats and that we have given them as full a chance as possible." I even went down one day and took tea on one of them myself. I think the fellows who were trying to operate it were doing their best. I do not think the failure in any degree can be attributed to the men operating the boats, but you cannot bring the boats to sea if the engines will not work.

I gave directions which, unlike my successor, Deputy Childers, I was reluctant to do. I was extremely reluctant to interfere with the day-to-day administration of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. However, I said to myself: "Here is a matter of board policy on which I am entitled to give An Bord Iascaigh Mhara a direction." I gave th chairman a direction that, a soon as these boats could economically be disposed of, they should be sold. Deputy O.J. Flanagan speaks of many offers for the boats. He was somewhat optimistic, I think. We had many offers, but the prudent advice tendered was that not all of these offers were as gilt-edged as they looked. We were careful to say to the chairman that he would have to use his discretion. There was no use in directing him to sell a boat to a fellow making an offer until he saw his money. If that direction stands, I have no doubt that he boats will be disposed of as best they may— and I feel they ought to be disposed of.

Our future efforts should be concentrated on increasing the capacity of the owner-fisherman to supply the domestic market—which, incidentally, I think he is now doing. Our own boats, manned by our own men, are capable of supplying the domestic market. Somebody said to-day—I think it was Deputy Faulkner—that something should be done to popularise fish. Something is being done. The adventitious profit of about £10,000 in the hands of the board is at present being used to operate an "East More Fish" campaign. Deputies may say: "It is a damned poor effort." What are you to do? I authorised the board, and I am convinced they carried out my instructions, to employ the best firm of publicity consultants they could get and operate a plan to expand the domestic demand for fish.

If there is one doctrine that young and old should keep constantly in mind, it is that you should not keep a dog and bark yourself. If the board give to a firm of publicity consultants the job of popularising the consumption of fish, they ought to be allowed to get on with the job and not be told halfway through how to do it. They will often reply that the resources at their disposal are not sufficient to turn the trick. But, in publicity, youcan spend almost any amount. However, there is an "East More Fish" campaign at the present moment. If anybody can suggest improvements on it, I have no doubt the Minister will take note of them. I imagine, however, he will share my reluctance to employ a firm of trained advertising consultants and then call them in and direct them from day to day on how the campaign should be conducted.

I do not know to what the Minister is referring when he says at column 277 of the Official Report:—

"Without knowing anything about the problems involved, I find the sea fishing world bedevilled by misapprehension and in a state of uneasy agitation inflated possibly by lack of control and direction, resulting in acrimonious disputes between various fishing interests."

The wholesale fishmongers want to down An Bord Iascaigh Mhara because they want to get their hands on the spoil. That is all. The board markets the fish in order to ensure that the fisherman will get the maximum return for it. The Wholesale Fishmongers' Association think they are competing with them in their God-given sphere of activity. All the hullabaloo arises from a carefully organised body of wholesale fishmongers who got control of the Comhlachas. Part of the Comhlachaas operations were to publish a newspaper which consisted very largely of explaining that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara was a wicked conspiracy to destroy private enterprise in this country and that they looked with confidence to the Taoiseach to protect the inalienable right of the enterprising Gael to corner the fruits of his private enterprise. That is the confusion. If the Minister at present in charge of Fisheries is so innocent as to allow them to sell him that cup od tea, it will be a very great pity.

An Bord Iascaigh Mhara was doing in the marketing sphere that which is was put there to do. One of the great complaints was "Oh, the cruel imposition, that a fisherman would not be allowed to sell his fish to anybody; that he had to sell his fish to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara." I am as much concerned for the fishermen as any Deputy in the House, but the fisherman of this country did not come down in yesterday's shower. They are no innocent childern. They are very good business men. Of course, they greatly liked to consign all their fish to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara at a guaranteed price when there was a glut and then, when there was a scarcity, to send no fish to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara but to send it all to those who would sell it for them on a scarcity market at the highest possible price that could be get at an auction.

The hardship that the poor hearts of the wholesale fishmongers were bleeding about was that the fishermen, selling their catch to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, had to pay a regular instalment on their boats. What hardship is there about it? An Bord Iascaigh Mhara lent them for their boats £9,000 on virtually no security except the security that they would market their fish with them and that there would be a modest reduction on each transaction towards the liquidation of their debt on the boats. There is not a single fisherman who entered into that contract who, when he had his boat cleared of debt, did not thank God that that charge was laid upon him.

That charge was never enforced in any savage way. If any man met with misfortune, there was no more sympathetic body than An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It placed at the fishermen's disposal, provided he intended payment, regular and unfailing assistance. If he were short of gear or anything else necessary to carry on his industry, he had a certain supplier, concerned to make no profit but to get him the best possible gear that could possibly be bought and to give it to him at the lowest possible price. They did not want profits and they allowed him to pay all out of his catches as they came to hand.

I would ask the Minister, when he talks about "the sea fishing world bedevilled by misapprehension and in a state of uneasy agitation", who is bedevilling it by uneasy agitation and misapprehension? Is there any fisherman on the coast of this country who has any apprehension except that the present relative prosperity in which he is operating will be interrupted by an effective raid by the wholesale fishmongers? I have never met a poor wholesale fishmonger. Did anybody here ever meet a poor wholesale fishmonger?

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is oversimplifying the problem and trying to make it funny. That is all.

Mr. Dillon

I am trying to warn the Minister against vested interests with whom I am familiar, and the kindest thing I can do with them is to make them look funny because——

Mr. Childers

Does the Deputy imagine I am any more ignorant of vested interests in this country than himself?

Mr. Dillon

The Minster must not tempt me to make tart answers. I am resolved, in dealing with this Estimate, to maintain an exterior of philosophic calm but there are so many cross answers I could make to that interjection from the Minister that I think I should pass from this topic l lest be tempted from the path of virtue.

"We think always," said the Minister, "of spending money to give immediate direct employment instead of spending money to train fishermen to explore our waters and exploit our resources in full." In the name of goodness, what does he mean by that? What money was ever given to the fishermen of this country for the single purpose of giving employment? I am not aware of one penny piece of the Fisheries Vote that ever was expended except with the object of putting a man to sea with the equipment necessary to earn his living.

A number of people here have got an idea at the back of their minds that fishing is heavily subsidised. It is not Any man who gets a boat and gear does not get a penny subsidy. He pays back with interest every farthing that is lent to him. There is not any question of subsidy. The significant thing is that in the last year ten or 12 years the boats are being paid for with the utmost regularity and—mark this well because I think it is one of the most glorious tributes to our success in the fishing industry—I think it is true to say that a bank official in this country, long familiar with handling the accounts of the owner-fishermen of this country, doffed his white collar not so long ago, assumed a jersey and said: "I have come to the conclusion that I am on the wrong side of the counter and I want to go to sea."

Mr. P.J. Burke

He would not be the first, either.

Mr. Dillon

Was there ever a higher tribute to the administration——

Mr. P.J. Burke

Of course, there was a big number back the other way also.

Mr. Dillon

——of myself, of the former Parliamentary Secretary who sits beside me and even of the much blown-up Deputy Bartely than the fact that we are luring the bankers from their lairs and persuading them to sea? When the Minister is told, by the vested interests, with whom, he claims, he is intimately familiar, that the industry is confronted by misapprehention and a sort of uneasy agitation, let him always remember the adventurous banker who went to sea because he found it more rewarding.

The Minister went on to say: "Other projects have been proposed. But the enthusiasm at Government level has not been sufficient to achieve spectacular changes". I give seven to four that the Taoiseach has not read that paragraph because, if he has and discovers that Deputy Bartely is not the only victim of the Minister's contempt but that actually the chief himself is being brought under review, there is one critic who, I would venture to say, in the course of the next week or so will be bedevilled by misapprehension and in a state of uneasy agitation.

"We have drained the bogs," said the Minister. "But we do not sail the seas for fish yet." Well, if we do not, I do not know where we got the fish. We have 80 boats and I do not meet them on the canal. Where does he say the boats are?

Mr. Childers

I shall explain to the Deputy when I reply. He will get overwhelming facts about not sailing the seas yet. I shall say a word about that before I sit down.

Mr. Dillon

I am not talking about sailing the seas. I want them to catch fish.

Mr. Childers

We are sailing some of them.

Mr. Dillon

I do not want to send any fisherman to the China seas or the Indian Ocean. I think they are sailing the seas and they are doing so as the owners and masters of their own vessels. I am not one bit dazzled by the glorious picture of the prospects of supplying the world nor am I in the least degree unaware of the potential market for pure fish.

Now, I share Deputy Flanagan's curiosity—what on earth is a porbeagle shark? I have heard of sharks and whales. Are those the sharks they are processing in Achill?

Mr. Childers

They are used for eating purpose in certain European countries, and I know very little more about them than the Deputy.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Are they going to be put in bottles, by any chance?

Mr. Dillon

Is it seriously suggested that we are all to be given a diet of porbeagle shark?

Mr. Childers

No one suggested it.

Mr. Dillon

Pilchards I know; tunny I know; but porbeagle shark, no.

Mr. Haughey

Well, shall we use porbeagle shark a a synonym for that? I so not know what the Minister has in mind there.

I do not want to conclude without directing the attention of the House to two facts. I believe that the wise course for us to pursue in regard to this matter is to expand this industry on the basis of shipowning fishermen. I believe that the destruction of that system, in pursuit of the illusory aim of establishing a trawler industry, a steam-trawler industry, in this country, would be reckless folly.

I do not want to conclude without saying a word about a potential market for pelagic fish. I do not suppose any man has ever gone into the Department of Fisheries without getting hot under the collar about the prospect of pelagic fish. I had several approaches to me while I was Minister for Fisheries, as ha my colleague, for markets for cured herrings. Now, the plain fact is that we used to sell cured herring and cured mackerel in America. America, as we all know, is now an apostle of free trade, freeing trade channels all over the world—until you want to sell stuff to America, and then you discover there are some great strategic reasons which make a complete exception in the case of whatever you want to free in the channels of trade. You find that Americans can grow strong only on herrings caught off the New England coast. Then you discover there are nine or ten Senators returned from New England and if you do not keep them sweet, you are looking for trouble. In any case, if there are ten Senators prepared to scratch other Senators' backs, the prospect of any free trade which will seriously interface with the commerce or industry of New England recedes into the middle distance. Our fish trade with the United States of America was strangled by American tariffs, and I do not believe we will see those tariffs lifted in our time.

We also had a very large trade with Hamburg, on the Continent, but that trade went in very large degree to Middle Eastern Europe. Middle Eastern Europe is now behind the Iron Curtain. While I was last in office, I remember, and the former Parlimentary Secretary will, too, being approached by a gentleman here saying they had a vast market for cured herrings in Czechoslovakia. They wanted facilities. I said: "What facilities do you want; this is a free country and if you want to buy anything, you may buy it and no one will say you yea or nay." They said they wanted facilities. I said: "What kind of facilities?" They said they were coming and would go down to see if there were any herrings. Then they said they would like to bring with them an adviser from the Embassy in London. I told them to go and take a running jump at themselves, that there was no official coming in here from the Czechoslovakian Embassy, from the Russian Embassy or from any of the other stooge embassies in London; if any man who was a citizen of Czechoslovakia wanted to come on business, let him come.

Two gentlemen turned up, accompanied by an Irish national, a very nice fellow. I was taking a cup of tea one night in the hotel in Mullingar, when they came in, on the wing to Western Ireland, where they wanted to buy up all the herrings they could buy, off the coast of Galway, Donegal, Mayo and right down to Kerry. They wanted facilities, but it was too late at night to talk about facilities. That ended up, as far as I can remember, with a proposal that if we would buy telegraph poles or something like that from them, they were prepared to pay for the herrings in telegraph poles—or wire, or a variety of other commodities they wanted to sell to us. And, of course, if that were conceded, the next thing probably would be a trade mission parked here in Dublin. It so happened that no one wanted the commodities they had to offer—which, incidentally, were offered at prices substantially higher than those at which the same commodities were available in other continental markets. The great payment in fish. That never came off, and there was no barter arrangement entered into.

If the present Minister can make a barter arrangement, more power to his elbow; but if he has my experience of barter arrangements, he will find he supplies the fish and gets damn little in exchange, except what is not wanted. I do not believe there is any enduring trade, upon which one can offer anything of value, to be procured from a country which stipulates it is to proceed exclusively on the basis of barter. Remember, if you walk into the trap of inviting relatively small people to invest their own and borrowed capital to equip themselves to supply a barter market of that kind, you may find those people, when they have their all invested, thrown on the bargain telling you they want your fish no more.

If anyone wants an object lesson in that, he might study the situation in Iceland and might ask any Icelandic statesman how much they longed to put an end to the monopolistic Russian purchasing of Icelandic fish and what substantial concessions they were prepaared to make in order to escape from that stranglehold of a monopoly market for the principal product of their population.

I certainly would never encourage the fishermen of this country to make the commitments requisite to equip them to supply a market of that kind, unless I knew no alternative method of disposing of their catch other than the barter agreement which was offered to them.

I remember an exactly analogous pattern emerging in connection with flax, in which the spinners in Northern Ireland had our growers by the throat and proceeded to put the screw on them and I told them, as I told this House, to go and take a running jump at themselves. Signs on it, to-day we are free of their aggression. We do not grow the crude flax, but we are able to get on without it; and mine is the greatest flax-growing constituency in Ireland. I warn the Minister against being dragged into urging our fishermen to equip themselves for the mass capture of herring and mackerel, if the only market available is a barter market in Eastern Europe. He may find a market in America or Germany or Spain, but I do not think he will. I do not think they are there. Until there are such markets I do not see how we are going to dispose of great quantities of pelagic fish.

In my opinion we are producing at present the best kippered herring in the world. What I do not understand is why, in the "Eat More Fish" campaign, the attraction of the kippered herring has not been more greatly emphasised. The boneless kippered herring—"Saile" is the name under which An Bord Iascaigh Mhara market it—is the best product of its kind available in these islands. I am at a loss to understand why the publicity campaign has not dwelt more on its excellence. How many Deputies know that they are available——

Mr. Childers

There are not enough of them yet to advertise them.

Mr. Dillon

That is a reasonable explanation. I think the board is to be congratulated on producing something which, on its excellence alone, has sold itself because it has received practically no advertising. If they equipped themselves to produce more and more, there is a market capable of expansion and, in my opinion, capable of expansion not only in the domestic field but on the export front as well. Let us end on this cheerful note. If the Minister finds the market for fish and the fishing industry bedevilled or overwrought with anxiety and agitation, let us at least all join in mutual congratulation that we are producing the best kippered herring in the world. When we are equipped to produce more, then we should be able to sell them at a profit to anybody who will take them. It is along these lines we can best hope to reap the pelagic harvest of our seas.

Remember—and I say it with all sincerity, especially to Deputy Wycherley —more tripe is spoken about trawlers trespassing in our waters than about any other subject in the country. I know it is not popular for me to say that. I know that the popular thing is to ask question of the Minister as to why trawlers are sweeping our seas within the three-mile limit. The plain truth is, and I believe Deputy Wycherley knows it, that 90 per cent. of the Spanish trawlers which go into Castletownbere go there out of the weather. We all know that when they are going out again they occasionally throw a trawl and we capture them, but they come into the waters to trawl is highly unlikely because the best fishing grounds are 150 miles off the west coast.

In 1949 I gave every Deputy in this House a map showing where the fishing grounds were and if the Minister wishes to refer to it he will find a copy of it in the Department. Our continental shelf extends 100 miles on the west and 500 miles on the south and it is on the edge of that shelf that the really large fishing grounds are. Trawlers come into our ports in bad weather and undoubtedly when going out again, if they get the chances, they try to trawl and of course do damage.

Let me tell the House a story. My colleague and I set our faces resolutely against any mitigation of penalities during out term. I gave a general direction that in regard to any trawler captured in our waters, whatever the district justice did, the law required him to confiscate the gear and fish and in no case were they to be restored. We were to press for the highest penalty and, while we could not dictate to the district justice, he had to make an order of confiscation and the Minister was the only person who could relax that.

There came a day when we captured a boat from Brittany, off the West Kerry coast. It was brought into port and the captain was prosecuted. He was fined and the gear and fish were confiscated. Within 48 hours I received a petition signed by the parish priest, the curate, the Protestant minister and the bulk of the residents and the clear implication was that I was a Communist if I did not give this fellow back his gear and fish because he was a hero who either supportd or fought for the Nazis and who sacrificed all for the cause. The implication was that if we took the trawler off him he was sunk and that nobody but a villain could be adamantine in this case. I sent back a letter which was civil, I hope, to say that not an inch of twine, not the tail of a fish would that fellow get and I was only sorry he was not put into jail. A protest meeting was held and I was denounced as having no sympathy for this fighter for freedom. I bore with that.

Three weeks later I captured that buck again. I had been told of course that if I did not give him back the gear and fish there was nothing ahead for him but starvation for himself and his family and separation for from them in the local warehouse. Three weeks or a month later he was captured off Donegal just as well equipped and as busy as a cow calf and we arrested him again and took the gear off him. I have no doubt that my successor may capture him a third time. I hope that if there is any agitation in regard to the penalties in these cases that the Minister will disregard them and make that a rigid rule.

My colleague, Deputy O.J. Flanagan, said at an earlier stage that where the district justice, having heard a case, imposed a penalty for offences against the Inland Fisheries Law, such as poisoning a river, blowing up a river or poaching of that character, calculated to injure the fishing potential of the river, he and I did recommend that there should be no mitigation of the penalty imposed. To that resolution we firmly adhered but where is this difficulty. There is vested in the Minister for justice an absolute discretion and, after he has heard the views of the Minister in charge of the Fisheries Branch, he may, for some reason, mitigate the penalty.

I know how exasperating that may be to boards of conservators who have gone to the greatest trouble to protect and police their rivers and who are only concerned with safeguarding the fishing potential of the rivers. When they being a prosecution against a person who is convicted and fined, and then here that the fine is remitted in whole or in part, they are inclined to blame the Minister. The minister in charge of the Fisheries Branch has a relatively simple task. He says that there are no mitigating circumstances. Then the Minister for Justice is faced with tthe case. The accused person may be the eldest son of a widowed woman who has five or six more children. He cannot pay the fine or will not pay the fine and the only alternative is to send him to jail. It is the harvest season, or it is the sowing season and the woman cannot sow the crop. There are various circumstances of that kind in rural Ireland with which we are all familiar, circumstances in which there is a shocking hardship imposed not on the offender but on the dependents of the offender.

The cruel dilemma is: what is the Minister for Jusitice to do? As Minister for Fisheries, I know I sometimes remonstrated, but I was obliged to concede that when one got his side of the story, one always found there was some element in the situation which probably justified the exercise of the prerogative. The trouble is that a case of that kind can cause endless trouble. Very often, the circumstances are such that one cannot give them full publicity and the board of conservators and the local people shrug their shoulders and say: "What is the use? When you catch them, the Minister lets them off."

I am not sure that I know the answer. I think I am certainly right in saying that the Minister for Fisheries ought to make it known, as I have no doubt he intends to do, that he will find no circumstances directly related to fisheries which will extenuate the kind of crime against the conservation law which involves conviction. But he will find himself in this difficulty: on occasion, his colleague, the Minister for Justice, will rightly exercise the prerogative and the blame for his exercise of that prerogative will be visited on the head of the Minister for Fisheries. All I can say is that in many of these cases "tout savoir c'est tout comprendre," and all I can urge on the Minister is to say to his colleague that nothing except the most extreme ground for compassion should make him interfere, as the enforcement of fishery law, if word spreads about that these penalities can easily remitted, will become almost impossible.

So far as I am concerned, I wish the Minister well and I wish him the best of luck in the job he has put his hand to. May I offer him this word of advice: if he wants to avoid acrimony in the discussion of fishery business in this House, he should forbear from the assumption that his predecessors were fools, knaves or laggards? They build up the fisheries of this country on a right and enduring foundation as he is, and he will be wise, when he listens to various dramatic proposals being adumbrated to him, to ask himself this question: If my predecessors did not do this, why? It certainly was not due to vice; it probably was not due to incompetence; and I think I can certainly say that it was not due to laziness. Perhaps there was a good reason, and he should be in a position to evaluate that reason before he determines on any new or revolutionary departure.

I should not like to regard myself as a conservative. I am a radical. There is no departure too new or too radical which would dismay me, if I believed it would achieve a particular end. But there is a greater danger of tearing down what has in it great promise in order to erect something bigger and better but with no capacity for performance at all. I want to see the fishing industry based upon our own fishermen supplying the domestic market with all the demersal and all the pelagic fish required, with a supplementary market growing and expanding for both demersal and pelagic fish, processed or unprocessed, within this State. I do not want to see all that has been built up on the west, south-west and north-west coast swept away at the whim of the wholesale fishmongers in dublin and in cork, whose vision in these matters is not, I think, always clear.

Mr. J. Brennan

There is no industry of more paramount interest to those of us who are destined to remain on the western seaboard than the fishing industry and the potential expansion of that industry. We are all anxious to have the assistance of other industries if we can get them, industries encouraged by grants and inducements of various kinds. Here in the fishing industry, however, we have at our hands the raw material. We have an industry entirely in accord with our locality. We look to it with great hope. I have listened very intently to the ex-Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries for the last two hours.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, God forbid!

Mr. J. Brennan

He did not raise any ray of hope. His tale carried a gloomy implication. I am not prepared to follow on that line. Whether the purpose of what he said was to try to bring notice to himself or the ex-Parlimentary Secretary for their efforts in the past few years, or whether it was designed simply to bedevil the chances of the present Minister by belittling some of the brighter hopes for the industry which he adumbrated in his opening statement I do not know, but I certainly do know that it did not create in my mind or in the mind of anybody genuinely interested in the industry any ray of hope.

Every year on this Estimate, we have the same old complaints trotted out about the lack of development of the home market, bad distribution, lack of continuity of supply and so forth. We have a coastline which compares more than favourably with other countries in which the fishing industry is of prime importance. These counttries with a much smaller coastline have reached the highest peak of developmet, so far as the fishing industry is concerned. Are we content to remain as we are, with relatively few people employed in the industry? Will these people say that there is no acrimony, no feeling of dissatisfaction, no cold war as between private enterprise and the State-sponsored section of the industry? To say that would be to deny a fact which is staring everyone in the face.

Mr. Dillon

Whose side is the Deputy on?

Mr. J. Brennan

Whether or not that feeling is unnecessarily geared up by certain publications is a matter for conjecture.

Mr. Dillon

Whose side is the Deputy on?

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not think anyone attempted to say there is complete co-operation except Deputy Dillon. Anyone who holds that view does not know what the facts are. Those of us who go amongst the fishermen know what they are. Those of us who go out in their boats and meet them in the publications to discuss this matter day in and day out know what the facts are. They know whether or not there is real contentment, whether they have hope for the future or not.

It does not serve any real purpose for a responsible ex-Minister to dwell for half an hour on the question of whether fish can be bottled or not. I think that is nonsense and a waste of time. The question we are interested in is: are we going to extend the fishing industry to the extent that we can look to it as a real means of stemming the tide of emigration from the West of Ireland? It is our principal source of bringing wealth to shores that are becoming completely denuded. The development of the home market is the Minister's hope. There is room for development here, but, at its very best, the home market for fish, with our declining population, would keep very few fishermen in comfortable employment.

As the minister pointed out, and I thoroughly agree with him—I do not know if he mentioned it in his opening statement or not, but he has said it on other occasions—if we were to get everybody in Ireland eating fish every day, we sould be doing it to the exclusion of the other home produced commodities which they are already eating, and we would not have achieved anything except perhaps shifting the emphasis from one type of industry to another. We are as much entitled to expand our export trade of fish as is any other country, whether it be Norway, Iceland, Denmark or America.

I was disappointed that the ex-Minisster did not indicate that he spent one penny piece or one hour of the Department's time in attempting to find an export market for any of our fishery products.

Mr. Dillon

We secured a large market in France for salmon.

Mr. J. Brennan

Salmon and shell-fish.

Mr. Dillon

Give the devil his due, now.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is a fact that we have a seller's market in France for shellfish and salmon, but, with all due respect, the ex-Minister had no difficulty with that market. It was there when he came into the Department and it was there when he left it.

Mr. Dillon

It was by trade agreement.

Mr. J. Brennan

The ex-Minister did not indicate in his speech—and I challenge him on this—that he spent one penny piece or one hour of the Department's or his own time in trying to find a market for our fish on the Continent or anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Dillon

We did. If the Deputy will give way, I shall explain. We procured, I think, the largest market that was ever enjoyed by this country for salmon and shellfish in France and Switzerland by trade agreement, painfully negotiated, in order to get quotas which other countries did not enjoy in those markets.

Mr. J. Brennan

I am greatful to the ex-Minister for his explanation, but I say in all honesty that for salmon and shellfish there is a sellers' market on the Continent.

Mr. Dillon

You have none now because the French have closed down.

Mr. J. Brennan

There is no difficulty or financial expenditure whatever invloved in keeping alive a market that has existed for years and could be greatly expanded, if the proper effort were put into it, and I say that for the benefit of the present occupant of the office of Minister for Fisheries. If we are to develop fisheries—and I have discussed this matter with people who are familiar with every aspect of the industry—we must find a market abroad for herrings, either fresh or processed, for kipper and sloke, canned or in any other form. It is only by a real earnest effort to expand our exports in that direction that we can look forward to what will be and should be as good a fishing industry in this island as exists in some of the better developed countries such as Iceland, Norway and Denmark.

I know that attempts made with regard to kippered herring have proved very successful. Why have they not been followed up? Deputy Dillon complains of our not advertising some of the nice products we have put on the market. Perhaps it takes time. We cannot afford to advertise. If the statistics giving the quantities produced are correct, we would not be justified in inserting one advertisement because we would not be able to meet the demand for one day. That is where private enterprise comes in. If we are not in a position to expend State funds further in the development of that branch of the industry, we should keep on good terms with private enterprises because they are of the people, just as the fishermen are of the people, and their money in private enterprise for the development of any branch of the industry should be very welcome to the Minister, to the Department, and those of us who are anxious to see development along these lines.

Those who seek to antagonise private enterprise are not serving the best interests of the potential development of the fishing industry. Nobody denies that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara is an essential organisation in connection with fisheries. We had many such organisations, but when these semi-State sponsored or State sponsored organisations come into existence, they should not arrogate to themselves the right to dictate to everybody in the industry what they should do and how they should do it. They should realise that they exist for the benefit of private enterprise to do the things which private enterprise cannot do because of their magnitude or their difficulty in some other way. However, they should, when using State funds, always be ready to co-ordinate their efforts with those of private enterprise in the interests of the community as a whole.

If private enterprise can be encouraged to sunscribe to the development of any branch of the fishing industry, I am sure An Bord Iascaigh Mhara would welcome that. If private enterprise can prove that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are unfairly competing in any legitimate trade connected with the industry, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should review their operations in that respect with a view to adjusting them to suit private enterprise.

When I say that, I want also to say to the people who criticise An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, merely because they are in some way acting as a brake on certain combines or would-be combines, that I shall not clap anybody on the back for that. In the cold war which obviously exists and which has been carried on for some time, particularly in the last few years, as between private enterprise and the State-sponsored side of the industry, there is a good deal of blame on both sides. The extremist on one side says that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara are an unnecessary organisation and implies they should not exist. That is nonsense. The industry would not be in the state of development that it has reached, poor and all as it may be, but for An Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

An Bord Iascaigh Mhara should not set themselves up as the body having sole responsibility for developing fishing and should not act, or appear to act, as having a monopoly in regard to either the marketing or the capture of fish. Every effort should be directed towards getting as many people as possible to engage in every form, processed fish, fresh fish, fishmeal, fish oil, fish products of every kind. That is the goal that we should set ourselves. I am not satisfied that we have made the necessary strides in that direction in the last number of years. Part of the reason is that the fishing industry has not been regarded as of sufficient importance. Very often the necessary attention has not been given to it at Government level.

The present Minister has given new hope to those of us who are genuinely interested in the expansion of the industry and he has already given the green light to those who are prepared to develop that important industry. I do not think that sarcasm or sneering at his early efforts by Deputies on the other side of the House can be justified, particularly in the light of the slow rate if progress made in the past few years.

The most dismal prediction this evening came from the former Minister for Agriculture, who virtually outlined that there was no prospect of developing the industry by the export of pelagic fish or demersal fish, for that matter, or fish products. I have not the figures before me now but the former Minister belittled the imports of fish by pointing out that certain delicacies in the form of Japanese salmon were being imported in tin and suggested that it was equivalent to luxury goods such as wines and so forth which certain people enjoy.

I wonder ho many licences were issued in the last year for the import of fish? I know people who are maintaining constant contracts by using an import licence to bring fish into this country whenever it suits them. That is not something which happened to-day or yesterday. The reason given for it is that it is difficult to fulfil contracts with institutions ot other large consumers owing to the insecurity of supplies on the home market. Certainly, we should have reached the stage when that difficulty should be obviated. If we have cold storage, we can conserve necessary supplies at a time of glut. Fish could be processed at a time when the price drops to a level where that would be economical. We could build up a reserve in that way for use when supplies are low. We should have learned sufficient by now to have completely eradicated the fluctuating market which is controlled by supply and demand. We could then set out to develop the home market.

While the home market requires a good deal of attention, the home market of itself will not make for an expanding industry. The number of men that it would keep comfortably employed would not be great. Any Minister who sets himself out to develop the fishing industry on the basis of the home market alone will not go down in history as having done much for the industry. If we cannot export fish in one form, we can export it in another. Let us set out to process fish aand send it out in the form of fishmeal, fish oil, cured, kippered or canned fish, so that the biggest possible fleets can be used to capture the fish and thus create employment. Metaphorically speaking, we are 1,000 miles off that as yet.

Deputy Dillon tried to create ghosts for the purpose of confusing the people as to what the present Minister will do to develop the industry. By his ingenious method, he created an imaginary statement out of the Minister's speech, that the industry was to be handed over to fleets of foreign trawlers. He flogged that ghost for an hour. Anybody reading that statement would believe that the Minister would hand over the fishing industry entirely to foreign trawlers but for the fact that Deputy Dillon stepped in in time to stop him. There is nobody talking of handing anything over to any foreign enterprise other than what suits this country and is in its best interests.

The other ghost that Deputy Dillon raised was in regard to the conservancy levy on salmon, which he finally brought down to a levy on the export of cattle. The bones on the Senator Quirke were again rattled in the House, to create in the minds of the people a feeling that Fianna Fáil would impose a levy on exports of cattle and agricultural produce. I do not think we are ever likely to make progress if ex-Ministers devote so much time to creating a ghost, as Deputy Dillon did here this evening, and manipulating it like a Punch and Judy show to frighten off the people who might have an interest in the future of a protected industry, in this case the fishing industry. I am confident that we can have as good a fishing industry here as they have in Norway or Iceland or Spain or any other country with a coastline similar to ours, but in regard to the statement that it would be a crime to introduce larger boats, I venture to predict that saying is something which will be laughed at in ten years' time.

I know the people who engage in fishing—and, thank God, in Donegal, we have one of the best fishing ports in Ireland—and when you ask any of them nowadays what the outlook for the future of the industry is, these men who go down to the sea in boats will tell you that the emphasis must be on the larger boat in the future. Year in, year out, boats are going further out to sea, with the result that while the 50-foot keel waas quite popular as recently as five or seven years ago, they are now seeking boats with keels up to 57 or 60 feet because they realise from experience that they must go to new grounds further out to sea as time goes on.

To say we must refuse to have larger boats indicates that those who say it are not in any way interested in, or at least have no practical experience of what they are talking about. Deputy Dillon, the former Minister, had a habit, whenever anything good came out of fishing, of giving credit to An Bord Iascaigh Mhara and whenever anything came that he thought was not so good, he blamed the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, then Deputy Bartley. He has tried to ridicule the whole fishing industry because of a few German boats that have been referred to an many occasions in this House. I think those were a worthwhile experiment and that if we want to continue to develop the fishing industry, we will find ourselves faced with a situation where we will be compelled to provide a number of larger boats, whether fishermen-owned or State-owned or partly owned by both. If we do not reach that stage in the development of the industry, the industry will not develop properly. Any country that has developed fishing to the extent to which it should be developed cannot go on indefinitely without larger boats capable of going to sea at times when small boats either cannot go out far enough or cannot get the necessary supplies inshore.

If we want to have worthwhile market outlets here, through processing or direct export or selling on the home market or a combination of all three, for an output of fish which is increasing year by year, we must provide larger boats whoever will own them or use them, so as to ensure a constant supply of fish.

There is a good deal of misconception in the minds of the people in regard to the inshore fisherman. To me the term denotes a man who uses a small craft, a man who goes to the bog to-day and to sea to-morrow and is about his farm the day after. Deputy Dillon refers to the man using the diesel-propelled seine boat as an inshore fisherman, but to the man who heretofore got his living with a small craft, the fisherman Deputy Dillon has in mind is a deep sea fisherman. Whether or not we agree on the interpretation of the term "inshore fisherman", I should like to say a word for the man who still tries to supplement his living on a small farm by using a small craft from which to fish hand lines or herring nets when time and weather permit. I think such men are of sufficient force in the industry to merit consideration. I do not think we should look upon them as extinct or as doing other than serving a useful purpose.

The larger boat is to a great extent the salvation and hope of the industry, no doubt, but it tends to congregate a fleet in a particular port to the detriment of the small fleet of little in-shor boats which were to be found in every creek or every inlet around the western seaboard. I believe those that still remain merit certain consideration by the Minister or An Bord Iascaigh Mhara because they will probably be with us for all time.

Nowdays, the tendency to have better boats and better conditions is a matter of higher standards such as apply in every other walk of life and that is to be welcomed rather than depracated, but for those smaller craft that are likely to remain with us, I would make a plea for afraid they are not getting it at the moment.

To turn to parochial interests for a moment, we in Donegal read with interest a reference made by the Minister on more than one occasion recently. That reference was to the provision of suitably equipped technical education in navigational and general marline subjects. I do not say this for any selfish reason, but I do believe that Killybegs is easily the most suitable place for the establishment of such a school. Let it be a pilot school, if you like, and let us build numerous schools around it in the future. Killybegs is the largest fishing port in the country and we believe the initial effort in furthering the educational standards of those who engage in the fishing industry should be at Killybegs.

The Donegal County Vocational Committee have already taken steps by way of itinerant classes to extend knowledge of marine matters; we have begun, or are in the course of beginning, continuation classes in Killybegs. We hope this will lead to the establishment there of a well-equipped school which will fit young men to engage in the hazards of the fishing industry. The Minister can be assured of our full co-operation in any efforts he makes in that direction.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House by appealing again for improved amenities for the industry, the necessity for which has become obvious in most of our ports. We have other means of making approaches to the Department in that respect, but I should like to stress the necessity for improved amenities in all fishing ports as the industry expands. Failure to improve the amenities might act as a brake on the industry. Private enterprise cannot be expected to provide these facilities. We expect that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara will attend to these things as they are required.

We do not wish the Minister to be deflected from his efforts by those who say that export markets are not available. Of course, they are. Deputy Dillon made sarcastic reference to proposals aimed at developing a barter system under which we would get electric standards and telegraph poles from countries behind the Iron Curtain in exchange for herring exports to those countries. We have imported a lot of things from behind the Iron Curtain in the last few years. Statistics show that we have received millions of pounds worth of goods from these countries to which we export practically nothing.

If we are to continue our imports of timber and timber pulp from countries behind the Iron Curtain, we should try to sell them something in exchange. We will never reduce our adverse trade balance by one-sides trading with any country. Of course, I am not suggesting that there are unlimited markets for herrings behind the Iron Curtain. What I do say is that we should do everything possible, explore every avenue, in order to develop our markets abroad for herrings and for processed fish of all kinds.

Deputy Dillon, in his speech, did not indicate that any effort was made to find a market abroad for pelagic fish during the past three years. On a point of explanation, he told me that markets were found in France for salmon and shell-fish. For as long as I can remember, periwinkles have been exported from Donegal to France. It is not difficult to sell salmon anywhere. There is a sellor's market for salmon and there is far more demand for that fish than we are able to cope with at the moment. In fact, our salmon anglers have been experiencing a very poor season.

I believe that the necessary encouragement has not been given to the shell-fish industry, which has a tremendous export potential. The Minister should do his best to organise that side of the fishing industry to a greater extent. It has been regarded in some areas as rather degrading that people should have to turn to the collection of shell-fish. I see nothing wrong in anybody engaging in a profitable, honest work such as the collection of shell-fish certainly is. While we are pursuing a campaign of eat more fish, I think we great market which exists for shell-fish.

Finally, I ask the Minister to develop the home market to the fullest extent possible. If we got our people to eat fish every day in the week, it will be all the better for the men who are engaged in the fishing industry, even though it will be at the expense of other products already grown at home. Our people eat eggs, bacon, butter, milk, mat and vegetables. Anything at all they eat is home-produced. If we get then all to eat fish every day, it will be all to the good of the industry and will keep profits made thereby at home. There is certainly much scope for the development of the home market but in the provincial towns, the present marketing conditions do not tend towards continuity of supplies.

However, I will say this to the Minister, that, in regard to his future attempts to develop the fishing industry, if we are to expand it to the extent that we should, considering our coastline, we must expand it on the basis of exports of fish, either fresh or processed. Let us concentrate more on exports of smoked fish, fishmeal, fish oil and every possible form in which fish can be exportted. Let us bring to the western seaboard the prosperity which is there to be grasped, if a lead in the proper manner is given to the people who will be prepared to grasp it.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am sure the last Deputy who spoke will not mind my saying that he has a habit, as has every Deputy who comes from the western seaboard, of taking as if there were only fishermen and boats and fishing being done along the western seaboard and in no other part of the State. Some of the speakers on the Fianna Fáil Benches seem to be pessimistic about the fishing industry.

Mr. J. Brennan

We are optimistic now about it.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is good because I thought you were pessimistic. I was really surprised that you should be pessimistic. It is the people in Waterford, in Dunmore East, who should be pessimistic. I want to draw the Minister's attention to some questions I asked his predecessor. On 5th July, 1956, I put down a question asking what were the landings of fish at various fishing ports in Ireland. At Schull, 10,506 cwts. were landed in 1953; at Castletownbere, 1,316 cwts.; at Cahirciveen, 3,770 cwts.; at Galway, 9,620 cwts.; at Killybegs, 20,770 cwts.; and at Schull, there were 9,192 cwts. landed; at Castletownbere, 2,709 cwts.; at Cahirciveen, 2,700 cwts.; at Galway, 15, 123 cwts. and at Killybegs, 23,241 cwts. In that same year, at Dunmore East, 17,400 cwts. were landed. I discovered also that the Minister and his predecessors had allocated this amount of money: Dingle, £18,000; Schull, £5,900; Ballycotton, £1,865; Cahirciveen, £4,500; Galway, £30,550; Killybegs, £76, 095, and Baltimore, £10,000. Nothing was allocated to Dunmore East. We were not doing too badly at Dunmore East to put our catches up from 6,000 cwts. to 17,000 cwts. I mentioned on the Budget debate that a sum of £35,000 or £45,000 was allotted to Dunmore East at last. The Minister did not mention that on his Estimate, but I am sure he will mention it when he is closing the debate. Some of the people down there were a little perturbed when they read the Minister's speech, but I told them I was convinced that he would stand over that allocation, as I am sure he will.

I would suggest one way in which the fishing industry can be brought to the position of success in which we would all like to see it. It is by putting ice-plants at places like Dunmore East, so that when the fish are caught, the ice will be available and if there are big catches or gluts, the fish can be kept. I am not speaking here on behalf of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara or the wholesale fish buyers, but I think both of them can play their part, and a good part, in this. Where these fish plants are concerned, I do not want to give An Bord Iascaigh Mhara the monopoly of the ice in the fish plants any more than I want to see the wholesalers get the monopoly of the fish. Let the best buyers of the fish get the ice because we are concerned that the fishermen get a good market. It does not matter if the wholesale fish suppliers want a big quantity of fish. If they want the ice, it should not be withheld from them.

In regard to the allotment of boats and with special reference to Dunmore East. I would point out that, in reply to a question on 31st March, 1953, the answer was given that, since 1948, 80 boats were allotted. All the people concerned in that are to be complimented, but they will not get any compliments from me because in the fishing port of Dunmore East, we got only two boats out of the 80. At Helvick in the Fíor-Ghaeltach in Waterford, the port of Ring, there was no allotment of any boat made until about five months ago. At that time, I went to Deputy Dillon's office and insisted that one boat being built should be allotted to be port of Helvick fishermen. The boat is already named the Ardmore and two men have already gone to Galway to train for it. However, the grapevine of the fishermen—and these fishermen are not supporters of mine but that does not matter—says that they are to be done out of this boat. That should not happen. The Minister should not allow it to happen.

The Minister says he is going to have an investigation of the actual habits of fish. Deputy Dillon is in agreement with him in a lot of this. I would agree with the Minister in having an investigation made but not on fish during the spawning season. I have seen fish full of spawn during the last few days and I wonder is it right to take them. Nobody seems to be sure about it and that is one of the things about which we should find out more.

I am sorry the Minister is not here now. I hope that Deputy Bartley will take note of the question I am asking the Minister. The Minister did not mention an allocation of £45,000 for Dunmore East during his speech and the people of Dunmore East thought they had been passed over. I am sure the Minister will assure the people down there that the allocation will stand.

There is another matter. Actually, it is not the Minister's pigeon. The pier in Dun more is a magnificent pier. It has been in need of repairs for some time. Even though it is not a matter for the Minister's Department, I am sure that if the Minister made the proper representations to the Board of Works, it would be investigated. The pier is well worth looking after and maintaining. It has not been maintained properly.

With regard to fish, people think the important thing is to catch the fish. From what we heard in the House and from the experience of people engaged in the fish business, the important thing is to sell the fish. If the fish can be sold, they can be caught, but if they cannot be sold, nobody will catch them. The question of the home market was discussed. I do not think the home market is fully developed, nor do I think that other commodities will suffer if we develop the home market to the full.

What I have in mind is this. In places 25 miles from the seaboard, people are not in the habit of getting any kind of fresh fish. They do not have fish regularly on Fridays throughout the year. That is one of the reasons—and nobody seemed to mention it—we have such a big trade in tinned salmon. Tinned salmon is an important commodity in country districts on Fridays. An enormous amount of tinned salmon is sold to the people on Fridays because they cannot get fresh fish. There should be development in regard to fresh fish and the development would come from ice plants and cold storage in such places as Killybegs, Dunmore and the big fishing ports. When the gluts of fish come in, the fish can be filleted and deep-frozen.

The provision of deep-freeze cabinets in various centres should be undertaken either by An Borrd Iascaigh Mhara or by private enterprise . Some refrigeration company in this country ought to take the matter up. The ice-cream cabinet business was put up all over the country by private entrpirse. Private enterprise did a very good job in that connection and I am sure there are sufficient refrigeration companies in the country who are progressive enough to have a go at it if their attention is drawn to the matter and if it is pointed out to them that, when these deep-freeze plants are working, there would be a reasonable chance of a continuous supply of fish. Cold storage would ensure the continuity of regular supplies.

It shows the way our fishing ports were neglected in the southern part og Ireland when a Deputy from Donegal could lightly say it was a worthwhile experiment to have bought these three trawlers at a cost of about £80,000. It took, I am sure, about £40,000 to run them. It was a brave thing to do, but I should not expect people interested in boats in southern Ireland who never saw those trawlers to be in any way impressed. They would look with jealous eyes on the amount of money spent on the trawlers and point out the number of boats in the 40-foot and 50-foot class that could be provided for that amount of money.

With regard to the levy on the export of salmon, I have always been connected with people in the export trade and we exported all our lives without a subsidy. We often exported very little because we could not get the licences. We did not seem to be blessed in regard to the getting of licences, but here is a commodity we can export. It is the principle which Deputy Dillon attacked—the principle of putting a levy of 2d. per lb. on a commodity that we are exporting. It could lead to stepping on something else. He is quite right.

You could even make a comparison in history. Henry VIII dissolved the lesser monasteries and when he got a taste of it, he dissolved them all, even though the Church protested. We should guard against any levies being put on exports for any purpose whatsoever. There should never be a levy put on the export of any commodity from this country.

The training of crews seems only to be necessary in Gaeltacht areas. I suppose it is necessary but with the exception of Helvick, it would not be necessary in regard to the fishing ports on the coast of Waterford. In those ports are men who have sailed the seven seas and many have their master's certificate. Their dearest wish is to come home and own a boat of their own.

My constituency has been treated vilely by successive Governments, by the last Government and previous Governments, in regard to boats and the allotment of money for improvements in regard to the maintenance of piers. I am often astounded listening to Deputies from the West of Ireland asking for piers to be built at a cost of £250,000 in places where I would discover, on going to the Library, there would not be 150 people living within 20 miles of them. The spirit of General John Regan is still galloping round there.

The Minister says there is not enough private enterprise in the fishing industry. I agree with him wholeheartedly. An Bord Iascaigh Mhara has done a good job and will do a good job. It will, please God, be always there. It is important that private enterprise should be encouraged and helped, but at the same time it is important to see that private enterprise does not get the whole grip. I believe that out of all the boats supplied to fishermen all over the country there have been practically no defaulters. Whatever amount of money was not paid up is so small that it is not worth talking about. That shows that the work is worth while and that the people engaged in it are worth while. I have spoken on various Estimates and have asked Ministers various questions. The technique of Ministers varies. Some of them take an easy question, which one of their own Deputies will put, and they answer that and harp on it in their closing speech. The Minister for Finance will scarcely answer any question at all, but I am sure the Minister for Lands, who is in charge of Fisheries also, will answer the questions I have put. I have no experience of him in the House and only came here to hear him one day when he was Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and I realised that he was then conscientiously answering the questions put to him from all sides of the House.

I want to close as I have closed on other occasions. I want the Minister to make a statement about the allotment of money which was made in the Budget, £45,000 for an ice plant for Dunmore East; and £5,000 for other works. I want him to make a statement about that, because he omitted to make it in his opening statement. I should like him to investigate the matter of taking fish through the spawning season. I would also draw his attention to the manner in which boats have been allotted over the past ten years and ask him to ensure that the Ardmore will go to the port of Ring to help it.

Mr. Haughey

I regard this as the most important, and on this occasion, the most interesting Estimate to come before the House. The importance of the fishing industry cannot be exaggerated. It is an industry which is unique to us in many ways. First of all, in its very nature, it is decentralised. In other spheres, for social reasons, we are forcing decentralisation on industries and activities which are not suitable for decentralisation in that fashion, but there are overriding considerations why we should do it. In the fishing industry, we have one which is per se readymade decentralised for us. In this industry, unlike many others, we have all the natural advantages. We have a large sea coast; we have numerous harbours; and we have people who are trained in the industry. It is an industry in which we can be completely and entirely self-sufficient. Apart possibly from the engines for the boats, in the short run, we need not import one single thing in order to have a thriving and expanding industry. All the raw materials and equipment necessary for expansion are to hand.

It is an industry which is capable of giving us an export trade. It is an industry where we can go into the export trade on terms of competitive advantage. It is also an industry which can help our people at home. If it were properly organised and developed, it would be a great source of cheap food which in the present circumstances and prevailing world conditions, would be a tremendous help to the poorer section of our people. I do not for a moment agree with Deputy Brennan, who made a serious error in thinking that if we eat fish, we would only be substituting it for some other agricultural product. There are several fallacies in that. In one way or another, we would be releasing something for potential export. We would also be eating our own fish instead of the imported fish which at present we are consuming.

I mention these various factors to emphasise the importance of the industry to us and why I think we should all come to the subject with an open mind, without any attempt in this debate to score cheap debating points over one another, in an effort to contribute whatever ideas we have to enable the industry to prosper.

Finally, the importance of the industry is great, too, in so far as it is one which is perfectly suited to helping the preservation of the Gaeltacht. To a great extent we can improve the situation in the Gaeltacht areas by developing and expanding the fishing industry; and by doing so we are doing a great service and doing great work in the national task of preserving the Gaeltacht and making it possible for the Gaeltacht areas to continue to survive.

I said that the debate on this Estimate is interesting. It is of interest to me, at any rate, for this reason, that more than any other Estimate which has come before us, we here in this House have an opportunity of playing a part, because the Minister, as is usual with him in anything he takes on, has made it perfectly clear that he is coming to the whole subject with a fresh mind and that he intends to examine everything critically and take nothing for granted. When a Minister comes with an Estimate and tells us he is still in the process of delving into this and of formulating policy, then it is good to have an opportunity of debating the Estimate in those circumstances, so that we can possibly give him a valuable contribution to his ideas and give him some help in that examination which he so typically is undertaking.

Mr. McQuillan

I thought Fianna Fáil had a policy on fisheries?

Mr. Haughey

There are many policies on fisheries.

Mr. McQuillan

That is quite evident, having listened to all the speakers over there.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy has not listened to the greater number of speakers so far as he has not been in the House. However, his interjection typifies what I was saying, that if we could stop trying to score these debating points and concentrate more on trying to add whatever little we can to the knowledge and ideas in the House, then the House would be performing the function which most of us were sent here to perform.

Mr. McQuillan

Very naïve.

Mr. Haughey

I may be naïve. I will probably become cynical and opportunist like the Deputy, but that may be some time yet. I make a plea to the Minister for two main things in his approach to this problem. There should be a complete and radical change in our administration of the Fisheries Branch of the Department. We all know the way it has operated roughly up to now. We have the primary producer, the fishermen; we have An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, a State-financed and sponsored body, actively engaged in trading in the industry; and then various private enterprise people in the wholesale end of the fish business.

The fundamental error in our approach to the problem so far is the fact that An Bord Iascaigh Mhara have gone into the trading end of the business. They have a very useful function to perform in encouraging all the various interests, in research, in training and in education; but they are completely unsuited, by their very nature, to engage in the various trading enterprises which they undertook.

I should like to illustrate that, if I may. I do not want to be critical of anybody and I am not even interested in who fostered the project, but I should like to mention the pilot fishmeal plant in Killybegs. That is one of the greatest confidence tricks which has ever been perpetrated on us in this House. It is fantastic for anyone to suggest to us that at the stage when this plant was set up it was necessary for us to have a pilot plant in order to find out whether or not fishmeal making was a good business.

Deputy Dillon was very avuncular to me in telling me all about Ballinasloe. Most of it I knew, anyway. I only mentioned Ballinasloe as an illustration of the fact that private enterprise was prepared to go in and start making fishmeal without any ballyhoo or without this business of having a pilot plant first to work out whether or not fishmeal was a proposition. Deputy O.J. Flanagan told us it was perfectly justifiable to lose money on the pilot plant at Killybegs because we would gain experience. Now that we have the experience, German interests are coming in. He told us himself that these people had experience all over Europe in making fishmeal. Why did we have to set up a plant to get experience to give to Germans who already had more experience than we ever had?

There is no doubt that the Killybeg's plant was a further attempt by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara—I wish they would be honest about it—to go into trade in the fish business. When, of course, it emerged—as it emerges in most of their schemes—through no fault of theirs because they are not equipped to run the business—that the plant was not making a profit and would not make a profit, they said: "We did not intend it ever to make a profit; it is only a pilot scheme always intended to incur losses." That is the type of thing I hope will go, under the new Minister. I hope that he will resolutely set his mind against this State board continuing to engage in trading.

The other thing I would ask the Minister to consider is the formulation of a long-term plan for the fishing industry. He said himself that the industry is bedevilled by anxiety and dislike, and that is so. It would be ridiculous to deny that there are jealousies and dislikes amongst the various interests in the industry. It is typical of that fact that Deputy Dillon should say across the House to Deputy Brennan: "What side are you on?" I think that very question was sufficient to show that those conflicting interests are there and that jealousies and hatreds abound.

I know many of us are suspicious of plans and blueprints but I think this is a case where a long-term plan is necessary. If a long-term plan were formulated and if the various interests in the industry were shown exactly where they could fit into it, we would be doing a great deal to get rid of the strife there at the moment. In addition, a plan like that would necessarily mean a far greater investment in the industry than we have at the moment.

Apart from the amount we are advancing on hire purchase to fishermen to buy their boats, the straightforward grants outlined in the Minister's speech are very small and are really a very pathetic investment, considered in the light of the State's investment in what should be one of our major industries. In his speech the Minister said:—

"During the current year, I am asking for £17,500 by way of grant and repayable advances of £55,000."

I know that a far greater sum will be used to finance the hire purchase of boats, but that is only the amount which is being invested in the industry. My plea to the Minister would be to formulate a long-term plan and in that long-term plan to contemplate a far greater volume of investment in this industry, which I know is capable of giving such a tremendous return.

The Minister will very likely say that there is competition for capital and that in our present circumstances, there must be competition for capital amongst many desirable projects. If he formulates such a plan, it should include, to my mind, the complete rebuilding of many of our harbours. I would suggest to the Minister that the World Import-Export Bank, which we have recently joined, would certainly finance such a long-term plan of development, if they were convinced it was properly thought out and would bring benefits.

The trend of Deputy Dillon's statement was that he was quite satisfied we were proceeding on the right lines. Everything was fairly all right and, according to Deputy Dillon, most of the things the Minister thought desirable were being done already. We may be proceeding on the right lines—I do not think we are—but even if we are, to my mind we are not proceeding very quickly. One simple little statistic will give us a fair idea of that. The landing of fish last year, excluding shell-fish, totalled 377,000 cwts. approximately. In 1948, nine years ago, the total landings were 385,000 cwts. In case you might think that is an isolated incident, in 1945 the total landings were 371,000 cwts., not much less. I do not think, therefore, that anybody can sit back and say we are proceeding satisfactorily and that all is well.

Again, may I quote a statement of the former Parliamentary Secretary as an example of the type of loose thinking that goes on in the whole fishing industry. In the Dáil Debates, Volume 162, No. 2, column 281, Deputy O. J. Flanagan is reported as stating:—

"It is also true to say that the greatest landings of fish ever recorded in this country were achieved during the term of office of the last inter-Party Government."

I suppose he was trying to make political capital of that, but it is very wrong of him to do so when he is completely wrong. The statistic which I have just given proves that that is not so. The greatest landings of fish in recent years were in 1948. It was very wrong of the man who held this very responsible position to make inaccurate statements like that just for the sake of scoring debating points in the House.

As I said, Deputy Dillon feels we are proceeding along the right lines. He believes that the industry should develop on the basis of owner-fishermen. I think we should certainly develop it along those lines. As far as I can see the bulk of the fishing industry in this country will always be controlled and operated by the owner-fishermen, but that does not, I think, rule out everybody else. In a properly balanced plan there would be a place for the offshore vessel, in regard to which an experiment was made recently. The horrible thing about the industry at the moment—and I think Deputy Dillon is to some extent responsible for it—is that people think if you advocate one thing you must necessarily go against everything else. Just because I said something about private enterprise having brought over Philip Harben he accused me of being a protagonist of the wholesale fish merchants—and of course I am not. My whole approach is that the Minister should try to reconcile all the interests, to show them all where they have a place in the industry and encourage them to work for its expansion. He will never succeed in doing that while An Bord Iascaigh Mhara continues to operate as at present. It is just not suited for it. The accounts which they publish every year, if examined, show quite clearly that they are completely unsuited to going into these trading ventures. They lose money. If they try something new which is a failure, it becomes a matter for political debate and naturally they are discouraged from doing it again.

The Minister should definitely take up the line he mentioned in his speech, that he will take over the executive control and direction of the industry. The board should be confined to administering grants, running training schemes and generally acting in a consultative and advisory way. If we brought that about, we would have made a great contribution to achieving peace in the industry. The safeguard the board provides at the moment for the fishermen in giving them a market could be achieved very simply in other ways.

There was talk here of a campaign to persuade our people to eat more fish. That is essential and desirable. The whole thing must develop as one. We must try to develop a home market as a sound basis and, in conjunction with that, we must develop fishmeal plants to use up the spare fish in times of glut and we must also try to create and develop an export market. We cannot say there is no point in catching fish because there is no one to eat it. On the other hand, we should not say, as Deputy Brennan says, that it is no use trying to persuade people to eat fish because we do not catch enough. We must endeavour to do all these things together. Some time ago, there was great publicity to the effect that we were to have a national "Eat More Fish" campaign, but it seemed to fizzle out. If there is such a campaign in existence now, it is certainly escaping my attention, as I have seen no trace of it.

When the Minister is replying, perhaps he would enlighten us in regard to some of his figures. On pages 4 and 5 of his speech, he mentions the total grant this year is down by £21,800 — from £71,930 to £50,130. The grant was divided into two parts, administration and development. Administration is decreased by £4,200 and according to his figures here, the development is decreased only by £12,500 which leaves a net decrease of £8,300. Perhaps he would show us where the remainder of the £21,800 comes in. It is certainly not clear from his speech, but no doubt in his usual capable manner, he will show us where that difference is.

Deputy Dillon was very scathing and inferred that the Minister was being very contradictory in his statement about education in the fishing industry, but anyone reading the Minister's speech carefully and impartially will find no contradiction. On page 6, the Minister says we have no education directed towards fishing as a vocation. That is quite true. Deputy Dillon tried to infer that, because the Minister on page 11 mentioned the fact that we have a specific scheme of instruction, the first statement is incorrect; but to me it is quite clear that there is a difference between one specific training scheme for skippers and what the Minister has in mind on page 6—education directed towards fishing as a vocation. I hope the Minister will continue with his ideas in that regard.

This is the gist of what I would like to contribute to the debate, namely, that it is perfectly obvious from the figures published year after year that we are not making the progress in this vital industry which we should make. It is also clear that that is due to a large extent to the present system of administration of the industry. My plea to the Minister is that, when he is ruthlessly re-examining the whole industry, he would very seriously consider reorienting the activities of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, in due course formulating a long-term plan of development, showing all the interests clearly where they will fit into the picture, and consider a far greater volume of investment in that industry.

Mr. Wycherley

I have in my possession the latest figures of the value of fish landed at our ports within the past 12 months. Because of those figures, I feel I am in a very strong position to speak on this Estimate. The area from which I come has landed more fish than any other area in this country. The port of Castletownbere landed £69,584; the port of Schull, £23,246; Baltimore, £20,756; Castletownshend, £11,636; Goleen, £8,479; making a total in my constituency of £133,695. The figures for Dungloe were £50,904, for Galway, £35,750 and Killybegs, £115,555. Deputy Lynch mentioned that Killybegs got grants to the extent of £76,000. I am personally well acquainted with every area in West Cork and all those ports I have mentioned, which landed fish to the value of £133,000, got very little help. Had they got the help which Killybegs got, of £76,000, there is no knowing what amount of fish they could land in West Cork.

I can speak from a local point of view and from a national point of view. All this fish is caught in a small area on the West Cork coast. Ninety-nine per cent. of it is sold in the Dublin market and in France, to which country it is flown. It is undoubted that this is a very valuable industry for the country but I am sorry to say it has got very little attention indeed, in my area, from successive Governments all down the years. While this figure of £133,695 is remarkable and surprised me very much, the manager of the Baltimore Fishery School, who was there during the 1914-1918 war, and to whom I was speaking last Sunday, told me that when he was manager of the school in one year alone fish to the value of £400,000 was landed at the port of Baltimore. He said it was an exceptional year and that a great number of fishing-boats were operating from that port.

This is an ideal port where we had a fishery school and where we have a boat-building yard. It is an excellent harbour in which even a string would hold the most valuable boat in safe anchorage during stormy periods. That is one of the most important aspects of fishing, safe anchorage for boats in stormy weather. I think I can challenge Deputy Brennan on the statement that Killybegs is the finest harbour in Ireland. I will go so far as to say that the harbour of Castletownbere is the finest in the world. The quantity of fish landed there last year was value for £69,584 and they got no State assistance whatever. Representations have been made to me from the people of Castletownbere for some aid to develop the port, the pier and the slip which have been neglected all down the years.

I have been told also by the fishermen that there is a great opening for a fishmeal factory in West Cork because in every haul of fish taken in, there is a great percentage of waste fish which is not suitable for human consumption. The port of Bantry would provide an admirable site for such a development as a fishmeal plant. We are importing at the present time £700,000 worth of fish; that I think was the figure which the Minister for Lands gave us in his opening speech. It is a sad reflection on the people of this country, surrounded as we are by fishing grounds and having an adverse trade balance, that we should, in this year, import fish to the value of £700,000 when our seas are teeming with fish which certainly should be edible enough for the Irish people. I heard Deputy Dillon talk about the tastes of certain sections of the people who wanted tinned salmon from Japan. He also spoke about tripe but I think that the greatest tripe I ever listened to was that we should import fish from Japan for the Irish people.

I was shocked by the statement I heard from Deputy O.J. Flanagan that he was subsidising people in the Gaeltacht and pampering them with money grants because they were able to speak Irish and to fish. The people of this country when they are eating fish are not concerned with whether that fish was caught by people who spoke English, Irish, French or Japanese or any other language for what they want is good quality fish. I want to put it to the House that my area, part of it in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht, has been neglected. I know that some of the fishermen can speak Irish; I know more of them cannot speak Irish, but whether they can or cannot they should not be hindered or deprived of any State grants which should be made available to every man in this country, irrespective of the language he speaks.

We want to develop the fishing industry; the Department of Education will deal with the other side of the question. It is the duty of that Department to develop the Irish language in the Gaeltacht, the Fíor-Ghaeltacht and everywhere else without interfering in any way with the development of the fishing industry.

Deputies may not be aware that along the coast in the area from which I come there are the best harbours in the world and I would say the best fishing grounds in the world. Fifty miles off the coast there are what are known as the Porcupine Banks. Those banks contain certain food for fish and just as you can have good land and bad land—good cattle come off good land and bad cattle come off bad land —so with the sea; there are good fishing grounds and bad fishing grounds. Along the south and west coasts there is the best feeding ground for fish and consequently the fish which are caught off those banks are so well fed that they are of greater value than fish which are caught off bad feeding ground.

When the Minister for Lands comes to consider where he will develop the fishing industry, where he will build a school for training the young fishermen, I would earnestly appeal to him to consider my area, where we have the fishermen and the harbours. The boats are scarce there but we have a boat building yard and we have practically everything that is required for the development of the fishing industry if we get the encouragement and financial assistance from the State.

The young fishermen of West Cork require very little nautical training. Indeed, they take to the water and to the fishing industry just as a duck will take to water, because the desire to fish is in their blood. They are born fishermen. You cannot make a fisherman out of a bank manager's son and it is not easy to make a fisherman out of one who knows very little about it. The first step is to develop the fishing industry in the areas where the fishing industry has already deep roots and has proved itself over the years as a great national industry. It is an industry which if properly developed could be of great assistance.

I see no justification whatever for importing fish into this country and it is a sad reflection that that should happen at all. The canning of fish could be a very important development. I have reason to know that in my area the boats are not employed full-time. They spend more than half their time lying idle because there is no continuity of market for the fish and it is no use fishermen going out to fish on Thursday, Friday or Saturday when there is no market for the fish they catch. The result is that their boats are tied up in the harbours.

The Minister should seriously consider the establishment of a factory for canning fish in order to ensure that the fishermen will be constantly employed over at least six days in every week. The fishermen are anxious for that continuity of employment but, at the moment, they do not like catching fish because when there is no market they have to dump the catch back into the sea again.

The other alternative is the establishment of a fishmeal factory. If the Minister had the necessary finances I would strongly urge him to establish both a fishmeal factory and a canning factory, a fishmeal factory at Bantry, which is the proper centre, and a caning factory in Baltimore, where the buildings are already there lying idle. We have natural fishermen and we have natural harbours. Everything we want is there to hand, but we lack capital.

Considering that this Estimate is for a sum of only £132,000, I fail to see how the Minister can develop the fishing industry to any great extent. The finances at his disposal are altogether too limited. The whole set-up is wrong. Were it not for the failure of commissions all down the years I would urge the Minister to set up a commission to inquire into the failure of the fishing industry, but, because of the failure of commissions in the past, I shall not make that plea. I prefer to give the Minister an opportunity of telling us what he intends to do for the development of this industry.

I cannot let this opportunity pass without referring to the destruction of fishing gear by foreign trawlers fishing both inside the territorial waters and on the high seas. I know from experience that this destruction has been going on over the years. It is going on at the present time with even greater abandon than in the past. Deputy Dillon said to-day that my statement to that effect was "all tripe". I would like to know from Deputy Dillon, if he was a fisherman out on the high seas with a big haul of fish and a valuable set of nets, would he consider it "all tripe" for a foreign trawler to come along and plough through those nets and take away that haul of fish? That is piracy. If there was wanton destruction on the land, the person aggrieved could easily have recourse to the law courts and claim compensation for malicious damage. Our fishermen along the coast have no court to which to appeal. They cannot have recourse to the law, especially when the damage is done by Spanish or French trawlers. They cannot go to France or Spain to state their case in the courts of those countries. They have put their trust in me and in another public representative to put their case before the Minister and the Government to ensure that they will be protected in the course of their work, either inside the territorial waters or on the high seas.

Our fishermen cannot afford to lose £200 worth of nets every now and again; but that is what is happening in West Cork. Even within the past six weeks there has been a case of that kind. On one night, the nets of three fishing-boats were damaged. A month later the nets of one fisherman were damaged and his haul of fish taken. That is not "tripe". That is a very serious thing for the poor fishermen who have no other means of livelihood.

It is a matter which should get the closest attention of the Government. The Minister should take his courage in his hands and bring in legislation here whereby such fishermen could be compensated when there is ample proof that this destruction of nets has taken place. A man who loses so much valuable property is entitled to some compensation from some source or another. If he cannot get it from the trawlers which do the damage, then this Government should come to his assistance so that he will be in a position to carry on the work of providing good food for the nation.

I understand the Minister has a great plan in mind for the tourists and the anglers. I have no doubt fishing could be a great attraction both for those who come from abroad and for our own people. But angling is a pastime of the well-to-do for the most part and I think the fishermen along our coasts, who are comparatively poor people and who are dependent upon fishing for their living, should get first consideration. Fisheries should be developed. They should be provided with constant employment by establishing a fishmeal factory and a canning factory. All down the years, these men have received very secondary consideration and the result of it is that the population along the seaboard is dwindling fast. The young men have no inducement to go out to fish.

If the Minister has the money at his disposal, he should provide boats, 60-foot or 70-foot boats, and put them at the disposal of the young fishermen, young men who have fishing in their blood. These young men can be guided and trained by the older fishermen and, if that is done, in a short time they will be able to repay in full the cost of these boats. Young fishermen have no money to put down such a big deposit as is required at the present time, but if they are given the chance, which I suggest to the Minister they should get, I have no doubt they will put the fishing industry on a very sound foundation and in a very short space of time. The money would be well spent in placing good boats at the disposal of young fishermen who will take to the fishing industry as a duck will take to water.

I visited Cape Clear last Sunday week. It is an island off the West Cork coast where, I would venture to say, the best fishermen in the world are. Cape Clear has a splendid harbour with a safe anchorage for boats; even a thread would hold a boat in the greatest storm. There the fishermen are honest-to-God men who want to make an honest living. One man told me that even though he was not constantly employed, he never drew a penny dole in his life and would not allow any member of his family to draw it. He preferred to work. They are the people whom I represent, people who want to get work, not dole. They have received very little help from successive Governments all down the years and I strongly appeal to this new Minister for Fisheries to see to it that this area will not be forgotten during his term of office.

There is an ice-plant being erected at Schull in my constituency. I am not so optimistic as to the future of this ice-plant as Deputy Flanagan and other speakers were. A limited number of ice-plants could do a certain amount of good in storing fish over a period, but, as far as I can see, unless more fish are caught when these ice-plants have been erected, there will not be sufficient fish to fill them. Moreover, the taste is more for canned fish and for fresh fish. However, seeing that the ice-plant is being erected in Schull, I hope it will be a success and that there will be enough fish to store in it. I hope also that the canning factory which I have suggested and the fishmeal factory will come next on the list in relation to the development of fisheries in West Cork.

Mr. Palmer

When Deputy Haughey was speaking, he referred to the five-year plan, and so on. There has always been talk about plans in various directions and in various Departments. I do not believe in those plans. In a democracy, there can be no such thing as plans at all. We never heard of plans until they were referred to in countries behind the Iron Curtain and I can assure you that during the past 35 years, since this State was established, there have never been plans in connection with fisheries or any other industry. There are always references to them in this House, but I believe it is a means of overcoming the immediate difficulties in connection with the matter under discussion.

Deputy Wycherley referred to the good fish to be found around West Cork and how it should be developed. West Cork is not so far away from South Kerry so it should have the same type of fish and should have the same type of development, I would like to refer back to the foundation of the State and the time when there was a Minister for Fisheries. I think that Ministry was established either late in 1922 or early in 1923. I am proud of the fact that it was my predecessor, Deputy Fionan Lynch, now Judge Lynch of Sligo, who was the then Minister for Fisheries, and I hold that he was the Minister who really laid the foundation of our fishing industry. It has not advanced very much since then.

During my nine years' experience in this House, we have been talking about fisheries and how we should bring about their advancement, but I do not think we have advanced very much. It is all right to talk about this and that and how it can be developed, but there is a great deal of hypocrisy behind the whole discussion. I believe that if the Minister for Fisheries and his Department set about giving the proper equipment to the fishermen and protect the territorial waters, that is the most they can do in a practical way. When the Ministry of Fisheries was established in 1923 and when the then Minister left office in 1932, Lands and Fisheries were combined; then, with the change of Government, we had the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and now we have a Minister responsible for Lands, Forestry and Fisheries.

I know that tourism is now moving in to claim the next place to agriculture in importance, but I hold that fisheries should be next to agriculture. When the inter-Party Government came into office in 1948, they kept Fisheries with Agriculture. I think they were right. The Ministry of Lands is not so important because it deals with various matters which should be finished with long ago. I agree that forestry is a very important section. Therefore, the order should be the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Lands, because fisheries are the most important.

I saw splashed in headlines across the various newspapers this morning that the Minister has established a five-year plan for inland fisheries. It is a very good idea. I hope that it will be carried out in such a way that it will prove a great success. When the Minister established a five-year plan for inland fisheries, why did he not also do something about sea fisheries? Although I do not agree with five-year plans, I do think that this time it is a step in the right direction but, as a believer in private enterprise, I think it should be left entirely to anglers' clubs to develop inland fisheries.

Bord Fáilte has been allotted certain work to do in connection with tourism. Many of the tourists to this country are interested in fishing but I do not think that Bord Fáilte should involve itself in that five-year plan for the improvement of lake and river fishing. In fact, we have too many boards and too many plans. If legislation were passed providing all the necessary facilities and if proper marketing arrangements were made, we could leave the matter to private enterprise.

In connection with fishing, our first concern should be the fishermen. I am referring now to sea fisheries. I am not referring to the angler or to the person who takes his rod with him on holidays, although he does mean a great deal to the country. I hope the Minister will be successful in his plan to entice fishing tourists to the country, but our primary concern should be for the sea fisheries. The fishermen must be properly equipped with boats and gear. The former Minister for Fisheries, Deputy Dillon, explained very clearly what was done to get large boats of 50, 60 or 75 feet, to enable our fishermen to go outside the territorial limits and to spend two to four days fishing there. Deputy Dillon is right in saying that, in a certain sense, there is no such thing as inshore fishermen. The fishermen that I know had small boats of perhaps 30 or 20 feet, and would go out a certain distance for a day and bring back the fish the same night.

The difficulty at the present time is to get men to do that type of fishing. It is a precarious business. Very often they have to meet very stormy conditions and their boats are not strong enough to weather the storms. It is a lonely life and in modern times it is difficult to get young men to take up that occupation.

Suitable boats should be made available to responsible fishermen who could engage crews to work with them. They could go out into the open seas to fish. Marketing arrangements should be made to dispose of that fish at once or deep freezing plant should be provided at the port of landing.

We are told that the sea around our shores is teeming with fish. If it is, I do not see why arrangements cannot be made, or why arrangements have not been made during the past 35 years, for the landing of that fish in sufficient quantities to supply the home market and to have a surplus for export. There must be something good around the coast when trawlers come from Spain, France, Norway and Sweden to our fishing grounds. That must be profitable to them. Why is it that arrangements have not been made here in the past 35 years whereby Irish boats and trawlers could catch that fish?

I am sure the Minister does not know very much about sea-fisheries. I do not know what he knows about inland fisheries. He is anxious to learn and I am sure he will study the whole question and will come to it with an independent mind and see what he can do to make up for the failures of the past. I regretted that his first action as Minister for Fisheries was to reimpose the levy of 2d. per lb. on salmon exports.

When the levy was first introduced, in 1953, South Kerry fishermen were disgusted and disappointed. They were delighted when we took it off in 1954. I am sorry to say this because I do not want to bring politics into the industry, but it is really characteristic of Fianna Fáil that when they imposed this tax—and it is a tax—as they did in 1947 on certain commodities, when they came back to office they reimposed them in 1952. They imposed that levy of 2d. a lb. on salmon exported in 1953 and when they came back to office in 1957 the first thing they did was to put it back.

Deputy Dillon developed the argument to-day in a way with which I am sure Deputies will all agree. I would advise the Minister, for the sake of the industry and the people who catch the salmon—because it is they who are really taxed—to take off this tax as soon as possible. We know well that the buyer of salmon for export will take into consideration that 2d. per lb. tax and will pay in accordance with that tax and that it is fishermen, particularly the salmon net fishermen, who will suffer. That was one great mistake the Minister made at the start of his term of office. I hope it will not take a change of Government to get that tax removed.

As regards facilities that should be given to fishermen, I hear a great deal of talk about Killybegs which has come into prominence in recent years. Deputy Moloney, my friend on the Fianna Fáil side, and I, come from the same county. I think both our areas are neglected but that mine is even more neglected than Dingle. A proposition was put forward some years ago and money was allocated to the extent of £80,000 under the last Government for the purpose of providing boats free of deposits in Gaeltacht and Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas but not one of these boats has come to South Kerry and there is a big Fíor-Ghaeltacht in that area.

I do not know if any have come to North Kerry, but any time one reads in the papers anything concerned with fisheries, it is all connected with Killybegs. How Killybegs has come into prominence I do not know, but before we ever heard of Killybegs we heard of the fisheries of South and West Kerry in Cahirciveen and Dingle. I would therefore remind the Minister, when boats are available—I am talking now of boats from 50 to 70 feet — he will see that South Kerry gets its fair share. I did not mention Dingle because I am sure Deputy Moloney will deal with that area and, in fact, I am afraid he will capture too many boats.

I just got a tip from behind that there are members from Dingle on An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. We did have one for years from South Kerry but eventually they snatched that representation from us and I suppose that is why we are neglected. I hope we can change that in the near future.

I do not want to delay the House because I do not believe in talking too much about anything. We should be practical. During all the 35 years of this Dáil there must have been mountains of speeches in the Minister's Department in connection with fisheries. I am sure all the officials who have been there in the past and are there at present must have studied all of them. I hope that the present Minister, or whatever Minister is there in the future, will get down to work on something practical, forgetting about the political side of this question. We were always led to believe—and it was so at one time—that fisheries came next to agriculture. Some people hold that agriculture has advanced, while others say it is still static in spite of all the experiments carried out to improve it. But our fisheries are static or, if anything, no matter what the figures appear to show, they have retrogressed.

If the new Minister would do something, no matter how drastic, to improve our fisheries and make them so that the industry will be capable in the future, not only of supplying the domestic market but of producing a big surplus for export, the fishing industry, like agriculture, would help to balance our external payments. I hope that the Minister will also remember what I have said in regard to South Kerry Gaeltacht and Fíor-Ghaeltacht areas having a grievance about the neglect in the past, and when we come to him to ask for the boats we feel we require or for any other facilities, that he will not only be sympathetic— because that alone is no good to us— but practical and do the best he can for the welfare of the fishermen of the constituency which I represent.

Cormac Ua Breisleáin

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an Meastachán seo ag baint le hiascaireacht, Meastachán a bhaineann leis an Ghaeltacht agus na ceantair atá thart ar chósta na hÉireann. Mar is eol do gach éinne, níl mórán tionscail, fairíor, sna háiteacha sin ach amháin tionscal na hiascaireachta.

Tionscal í seo a choinnigh an Ghaeltacht beo agus a choinnigh na céadta daoine óga sa bhaile. Ar an abhar sin, tá suim mhór againn i dTír Chonaill sa Mheastachán seo gach bliain agus sa díospóireacht seo. Fairíor, tá a fhios ag cách go bhfuil na daoine ag imeacht ina scataí. Tá siad ag imeacht ó Thír Chonaill, ó Chontae Mhuigheo, ó Ghaillimh agus ó Chontae Chiarraí. Ba cheart go ndéanfadh an tAire aon rud atá ina chumas chun cuidiú leis na daoine seo sa Ghaeltacht. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil obair mhór le déanamh ag an Aire ach tá súil againn go ndéanfaidh sé a dhícheall ar son na ndaoine thart túnpeall an chósta sna ceantair iascaigh.

I want to intervene briefly in this debate because this is one of the Estimates that deal directly with the Gaeltacht areas, with the areas around our rocky coasts. It also deals with what should be one of the principal industries in the country.

The fishing industry has been the anchor for the Gaeltacht areas all down the years. It is one in which the people of Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Kerry take a special pride and interest. They have kept that industry alive though difficult times without any Government assistance. It is an industry that has prevented a mass exodus from the areas I have mentioned to the factories of Scotland and England. Accordingly, anything the Minister can do to help that industry in those areas will be welcomed by the people there.

We realise well the immensity of the task undertaken by the Minister. It will not be an easy one, but in that work he will have the best wishes of all those people interested in what should be our principal industry. We wish him well in his task. We feel that the fishing industry could be expanded tremendously and that in that expansion, there could be provided a big increase in employment around our coast. There could also result from such an expansion the establishment of many offshoots of the industry—canning, fishmeal factories and so on.

My main interest in intervening in this debate is to ask the Minister to ensure that, in the development of this industry which he envisages and for which we all hope, there will be a place for the inshore fishermen. I have on many occasions here spoken on their behalf, and when I mention that type of people, I speak of those who use small boats, as distinct from the large trawlers now participating in the industry. Those people kept the industry alive down through the years. They are the descendants of those who, banished from the good lands of the 32 Counties, were sent to the Gaeltacht areas where they sank their roots deep in the rocky soil and held on.

I feel any Irish Minister should keep those people in mind in the development of an industry in which they have engaged during the past couple of hundred years. I am sorry to have to tell the Minister and the House that the position as regards the inshore fishermen at the moment is not a very healthy one, in so far as County Donegal is concerned. Last year, I pointed out to the then Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary that the revocation of a by-law passed by the British Government in 1908 to preserve the fishing industry would have serious effects in County Donegal.

I hoped on that occasion that when the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O.J. Flanagan, was replying, he would at least mention this problem, that he would indicate what his views were and what he intended doing for the inshore fishermen who would be affected by the revocation of the Order. We in this country have little to be thankful for to the British Government, but in those days the British Government evidently had qualms of conscience in so far as the fishing industry was concerned. In 1908, they passed this by-law prohibiting the large trawlers from coming into the inshore waters. By inshore, I mean anything from 100 yards to three miles from the shore. That, in County Donegal, is our definition of inshore waters. The then Parliamentary Secretary pointed out to the House what he thought an inshore fisherman really was—a person who went to sea and stayed there anything up to 72 hours.

Round the coast that is not the definition of an inshore fisherman. The by-law to which I have referred was unfortunately rovoked against all the evidence given by the fishermen and others engaged in the industry in West Donegal. The result was that the trawlers were allowed to come into waters preserved for the inshore men since 1908. Last year, we were beginning to see the result of this action taken by the Minister and his Department.

In Aranmore Island we had upwards of 26 inshore fishing boats engaged. Last year 23 boats were pulled up on the beach and their crews were forced to go to Scotland and England. In Rosbeg we had practically the whole fleet of from ten to 12 boats pulled up on the shore. Their owners and crews had emigrated to Scotland and England. The same position obtained in Downings where we had a big inshore fishing fleet. At least 15 or 16 of the boats had been taken out of the water and their crews had emigrated because they could not compete with the large trawlers that had been allowed to fish in inshore waters. These large trawlers had glutted the market and in one way or another could dispose promptly of their fish, with the result that the inshore fishermen had to sell their catches to the fishmeal factory in Killybegs at ruinous prices.

By the revocation of one by-law in West Donegal upwards of 45 or 50 inshore fishing boats were immobilised and their crews forced to emigrate to the industrial centres of England and Scotland, when they could be employed at home. I feel the Minister should pay some attention to that problem. This House will shortly be appointing a Minister for the Gaeltacht who will be charged with the responsibility of looking after the various Gaeltacht areas. I feel there should be some co-operation between a Department charged with keeping our people at home and the Department in charge of fisheries, an industry that has such a bearing on the livelihood of the people living in the Gaeltacht.

I hope that the Minister will bring a new approach to this very important problem, a problem that, unless checked in the beginning, will mean more emigration and more unemployment in areas where we have known those twin evils for so many years. The Minister may imagine that these inshore fishing boats were not sufficiently active, that they were not doing enough, but I can inform the Minister that the inshore fishing boats which operate around the West Donegal coasts are in a position to get so many herrings during the fishing season that delays are frequent in getting them away from the piers between Malin More and Downings. There was no market for them and I cannot understand how the Minister and his Department will dispose of the increased landings of herrings, consequent upon the introduction of so many new trawlers, especially when they could not dispose of the catches of the inshore fishing boats.

Herring fishing is one of the most important questions as far as Donegal is concerned and, if I may make a suggestion to the Minister, I feel that if the question is to be tackled in a healthy and successful manner, a herring fishery board should be established in this country. Such a board should be charged with the responsibility of making a success of this important industry. It should be a board that would get markets in Europe in which we could dispose of the increased catches. The Minister is well aware that it is not enough to manufacture goods. One must have a pretty good sales department that will go out into the country, and out into the world, to dispose of the products. The same applies to the fishing industry.

I feel we have not been active at all in so far as getting new markets abroad is concerned. That should be one of our first steps, to ensure that we have the markets for the fish. As many other Deputies pointed out, if the fishermen have assured markets for the herrings, there is no doubt whatever that they will catch fish. If they are assured of a decent market for their produce, I do not see any reason why sufficient fish should not be caught in this country to serve all the markets which we hope to get.

It will be a serious matter for the inshore fishermen if the present position is allowed to continue, especially in West Donegal. I feel the Minister should take some steps to prevent the trawlers from coming into inshore waters, that is, within a mile, or a mile and a half of the shore. Up to date trawlers, equipped with all the latest innovations as far as fishing is concerned, can go further afield and the inshore waters should be preserved for the inshore fishermen. Other industries are protected by the Government and I do not see any reason why inshore fishermen should not receive similar protection from the State.

There was another inquiry in Mayo last year, of a similar kind to that which we had in Donegal, dealing with the revocation of a by-law. In that case, the Government have not been at all quick in giving a decision. They have not been as speedy as they were in regard to Donegal. I often wonder what is the hold-up in that particular case. I hope, for the sake of the fishing industry in Mayo, that the fishermen there will not lose as a result of that inquiry which, as far as I remember, was held early last year.

The question of fishmeal factories has been mentioned here and, though they would be an asset to our economy, I hope the Minister does not rely on the fishmeal factories which he has in mind to make our fishing industry a success. Fishmeal factories guarantee a minimum price for herrings delivered at the factory but they do not guarantee that every cran of herrings will be bought. Fishmeal factories are not the foundation-stones on which an industry such as this can be built. I hope they will be used only in the last analysis to take what is left of our herring gluts as they come along from year to year.

There is just one other point I should like to mention before I conclude. It is a minor point and I hope the Minister may be able to deal with it. Those engaged in the selling of fish complain, at least as far as Donegal is concerned, that they have to travel to Killybegs in order to buy fish. As the Minister is well aware, boats land the fish at Bunbeg and Burtonport, and fish salesmen should, I imagine, be able to get their supplies nearer home instead of travelling 50 or 60 miles in order to buy fish landed at their own door—fish which comes back again to the same area in which it was landed. I do not see any reason why they should have to travel so far when the fish are available at their own door and I hope the Minister will be able to do something to change that position.

We realise what a task the Minister has in hands to expand this fishing industry. The best wishes of everybody who has any interest in this matter go to the Minister in his task. In the development of the fishing industry there should be room for the inshore fishermen for whom I have now made my plea.

Mr. McQuillan

May I join with the last speaker in wishing the Minister luck in his task? He will need luck. I am sure he has listened attentively to the various speeches made here in the House on this debate and, on the examination of those speeches, he will find that he is being offered very conflicting advice, even within his own Party. Perhaps the best advantage the Minister has at the moment is that his knowledge of the fishing industry is indeed very limited. I say that in no contemptuous or critical way. I understand he has admitted himself that his knowledge of the fishing industry is limited. Consequently, he can face the many problems with an open mind.

I do not propose to say anything very detailed on the matter of our fishing industry because I have already placed my views on record in this House, as far back as 1948 and 1949. If we can believe what the Minister proposes I am glad that the policy outlined by an organisation to which I belonged ten years ago is at last about to be implemented.

Deputy Haughey in the course of his remarks this evening suggested that the fishing industry had been neglected in the past and that it was time a new approach were made. I concur completely with that. Perhaps he was displeased at an interruption of mine made in the course of his remarks to the effect that he was talking about an industry upon which we had been expecting a concrete policy over the years. The suggestion was that some of us in this House were cynical and opportunists if we did not accept the fact that Deputy Haughey is the new prophet for Fianna Fáil in regard to the fishing industry. I accept his criticism as far as the cynicism is concerned, because I am a very doubting Thomas in regard to the policy now pursued in this House. I certainly shall not accept his criticism as far as opportunity is concerned and the Deputy should be the best judge of opportunity as far as he himself is concerned.

I may be naïve myself when I suggest that before a Minister comes in here to discuss his views on any aspect of the economic situation, whether he is in charge of agriculture, fisheries or anything else, at least the Party to which he belongs would have had over the months a serious discussion on all the aspects of the particular problem.

I should have imagined that the Minister in a responsible Party would have sat down over the months with a sub-committee of his own Party and hammered out within the Party the various difficulties and, therefore, be in a position to come into this House with at least a planned programme to develop that which—and we are all agreed upon this—should be our second industry. Instead of that, we have the position now that since 1932, when Deputy de Valera spoke down in Kerry about the desirability of expanding our fishing industry, we are still waiting for that expansion. Is it any wonder that people who do not belong to political Parties and the general public are cynical of the promises and the aspirations of those political Parties? That is not criticism of Fianna Fáil. That is also criticism of my colleagues on the left-hand side of the House.

I myself listened to Deputy de Valera in Donegal talking about the desirability of getting the fishing industry going. It makes me ripping mad to find that in spite of the brave talk outside the House about getting the fishing industry going, Minister after Minister in the various Governments have failed miserably to get the industry on its feet and get the return in wealth that is at our disposal if the necessary efforts were made. Having said that I shall put this to the Minister. If he starts off now we will forget all that has happened. I am prepared to start from scratch and help him in every way possible. Instead of going back to 1932, 1947 or 1952, I am prepared to look forward for many years to help him and, if he finds it necessary to bring in measures or to smash any vested interest he certainly will have my support.

Make no mistake about it. The Minister is up against some hard nuts when he is dealing with the fishing industry. Even in this House the Minister could find warnings being issued in a very delicate fashion. Deputies spoke about the desirability of having private enterprise. The same Deputies spoke about not letting private enterprise get away with everything. Other Deputies spoke delicately about the good work done by certain wholesale groups and said their interest must be protected. More Deputies spoke about the desirability of protecting the inshore fishermen and the very same Deputies launched out into an appeal to the Minister to get going with regard to deep sea fishing and get into the world market.

The sea fishing industry can be looked upon as next to agriculture in its development. If that is so, it must be treated mainly as a business proposition. We have now decided to reexamine the whole problem of agriculture and the methods of ouput, but let us not make the mistake in the fishing industry of starting off where we were 30 years ago in agriculture. If we are to go into world competition; if we are to sell fish on the Continent in competition with existing fleets, then we have to go into the business of fishing in a big way and there are small people who will get hurt in the process. Whether that hurt will be of a lasting character or not is something which the Minister can definitely control.

In 1948, when I suggested going into deep-sea fishing in a big way with large boats, the argument put forward by the then Minister was that the rights, interests and livelihood of the inshore fishermen would be damaged. In his opinion the livelihood of the inshore fishermen came first and foremost. To-day that very same gentleman said there was no such thing as an inshore fisherman at all. They must have all disappeared since 1948.

My argument is that the inshore fishermen, as we have known them, can be absorbed into the deep-sea fishing industry. They can be absorbed in the position of employees. The day of going into a highly competitive industry in small boats which can go out only two or three miles is gone. We must forget that if we are to go into the world market. That is the first point that must be remembered.

Apart from all the interests involved, the fishmongers or the actual fishermen themselves, we must remember that the public are there. Up to the present the public have been the last people to be considered. They have been exploited up and down the years. If they have not been exploited in the matter of prices they have been let down in connection with catches. It is a very recent development in rural Ireland that fresh fish can be made available on a Friday and yet the argument is put forward by the former Parliamentary Secretary that last year we landed in our own boats at our own ports our requirements of fish. I never heard anything more nonsensical in my life.

If the people do not get the fish, how can we expect them to develop a taste for it or get used to the idea of using it for more than just the one meal on Friday? If they find that on two Fridays out of the month fish is not available, what will the people think and do? For the following two Fridays they will make alternative arrangements with regard to that particular meal as they will not depend on fish deliveries. We must have a guaranteed continuity of supply if we are to get the confidence of the people. I shall not say any more on that subject now as other Deputies have already spoken on various aspects of it. I rather think that, in the past, we have men in the Fisheries Branch who accepted the easy way out—men who were prepared to accept this type of advice: "You will hurt this interest if you take this step and you will hurt that interest if you take that step." The result has been that only half-measures were taken and that, in the long run, everybody was dissatisfied.

Deputy Wycherley mentioned protection. He drew what I can only describe as a pitiful picture in relation to the material, gear and equipment of first-class fishermen in West Cork which is taken away and destroyed by French and Spanish trawlers. The best way to protect our fishermen is to get out in competition with them in our own big boats. If people in Spain and France find that we are able to produce the boats and equipment here to enable us to fish without obstacle off our own coasts, they will realise it will not be such a paying proposition for them to send their trawlers all the way from those distant countries.

The very fact that we have no fishing fleet is a constant temptation to those people to come along our coasts and dig into the rich harvest which is available: it must be available or else those people would not come such a very long distance and shelter in the Aran Islands, Galway Bay or Bantry Bay and other such harbours during the really stormy period. They are fishing off our coasts day and night. If they can afford to send their boats so many hundreds of miles, surely we can afford to send our boats the much shorter distance involved in our own case? Like Deputy Breslin, I wish the Minister luck. I hope he gets down to business and that he will stamp left, right and centre on vested interests and get this country on its feet.

There are two important points which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister. Actually, one of them was mentioned in to-day's Irish Press in connection with the development of our inland fisheries. I think the Minister knows quite a lot about this subject. I shall tackle him to-night in regard to one aspect of the development plan which is being put forward by An Bord Fáilte. I have always believed that one of the best sources of income to this country is the fisherman who comes from England. There are 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 anglers in England alone who are described as coarse fishermen who could be attracted here for the Irish fishing season if proper publicity were undertaken in that respect in Britain and if the necessary hotel accommodation were made available here.

The fishermen who come from England are not looking for luxury hotels or luxury accommodation. They are satisfied with good food and clean rooms. Apart from that, they may have a little enjoyment in the evening after their day's fishing during which they chat to one another about their great catches. That is all they want. They are not looking for the luxury treatment which I am afraid will now be meted out for those people. Undoubtedly it is necessary to plan or base this programme over a period of years. I could not disagree more than I do with Deputy Palmer about planning. He seems to think that when you advocate a plan—a five year, seven year or ten year plan—you get your idea from behind the Iron Curtain. That sort of ráméis should be finished with in this country.

Five year plans are tried out in more countries than just those behind the Iron Curtain. Indeed, is it not necessary to plan the progress of any work? Deputy Palmer should realise that Bord na Móna had to base the whole of its first programme on a period of five years and then assess the advance made in that period and plan for a further five years. The same thing can be said of the E.S.B., the Sugar Company and every first class State enterprise. You must plan over a period of years. The very same thing applies to our fishing industry and it should apply also to other aspects of our economy.

I believe a five-year plan for our fishing industry is essential. As time goes on, we shall be able to see the snags that crop up. As a matter of fact, one snag has already appeared. As the Minister is well aware, over the years the landlords have, to a certain extent, been eliminated from this country. I speak now of the Midlands and the rivers and lakes which I know. For generations, the coarse fishing there has been free. In their publicity pamphlets the Tourist Board has specifically advertised in England and elsewhere that coarse fishing is entirely free everywhere. Within the past six months in my constituency, and in the adjoining constituency, I have seen signs erected bearing the emblem of An Bord Fáilte which would indicate that, from now on, a permit is essential even for the natives and locals to fish in those rivers, lakes and streams where the fishing has been free for generations.

I am sure the Minister has received representations on that point from his constituency of Athlone-Longford. He knows there is a first class fishing club in the Athlone area. If he goes to the Suck he will find very few clubs but there are hardened fishermen there who very much resent the fact that they will be told: "You must get a permit now to fish for pike, perch or bream" which they were able to get all their lives without it. In order to get the co-operation of these very men, is it not necessary that we should have their goodwill?

In his speech at Galway yesterday in connection with his plan for the inland fisheries, the Minister said: "Its success must depend on the co-operation and sympathetic consideration of anglers, landholders, boatmen, hotel owners and local development organisations." He will not get sympathy or co-operation but rather the ire, anger, indignation and strongest possible opposition of the landholders, anglers and local development organisations. I have been asked to speak here on behalf of quite a number of those people. Without ever being asked to speak by those people, I took a rod and line out to the Suck myself to fish for pike.

I met a good friend of mine who was interested in the expansion of the fishing industry and in developing the fishing facilities on the Suck. He told me that he had the actual permit in his pocket which should be signed by the local people, if they wanted to go fishing there. He said that so long as he was in the locality no local person would ever have to sign, but he was supposed to get them to sign it.

The Minister should have that aspect re-examined. It is too bad to find those people being "taken for a ride" by the Inland Fisheries Trust or some other body, while we have gentlemen in Connemara, Donegal, Cork and elsewhere holding the fishing and shooting rights of from 15,000 to 20,000 acres. It is bad enough to have that position obtaining at the moment, without having a State body moving in now to limit the opportunities of the ordinary fisherman who has had those facilities all his life.

I want to give an alternative to the Minister. Instead of going about this plan by a gradual encroachment on the rights of the ordinary fisherman, I suggest all fishing rights should be vested in the State. That goes for the big estates and lakes all over the country. Having put all the fishing people on the one basis, he can afterwards lease out the rights to certain organisations composed of the local people. They themselves would then be the first to ensure that no poaching or other dishonest act takes place. There would be no need then for bailiffs and all the other watchdogs, provided the local people are taken into the Minister's confidence. It will be in the interest of each farmer, each landowner and each person concerned in the locality to preserve the fishing rights because they will benefit themselves.

As it is at the moment, the sympathy in many cases is for poachers and such people because the ordinary person says: "I hope he gets away with it. It belongs to Colonel So-and-So. He does not deserve it. The more salmon taken from him, the better." I do not blame the people one bit for poaching that way. If I were there, I would be the first to do it. I am drawing the attention of the Minister to it and I will not go any further at this stage. I hope he will have the matter examined. I have already brought it to the attention of some of the people in Bord Fáilte. I warned them the matter was causing indignation throughout the country and this special grant being made available to the Inland Fisheries Trust would be queried in this House, if steps were not taken to protect the rights of the fishermen and landholders down the country.

The other point I wish to raise is one that arises as a result of a newspaper cutting I discovered, in which it is reported that an Irishman, the skipper of a trawler from the occupied part of Ireland, was fined the sum of £5 in the Dublin District Court for fishing inside the exclusive fishing limits of Ireland. Mark you, our Naval Service had nothing better to do than chase this man around the coast and arrest him as an Irishman for fishing in Irish territorial waters. I raised this matter first with the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence shed his responsibility and said his fleet, this Navy, was acting under orders from the Fisheries Branch, so I presume at long last we have traced the culprit and that the Fisheries people are those responsible.

I put a question here to the Taoiseach some time ago in connection with the Boundary Commission. One of the Articles in the 1921 Agreement had specific reference to the fishing industry. It was to be one of the points upon which discussion would take place from time to time between this group in the Six Counties and the people elected down here. In 1925, the power to have such discussions was cancelled by the Boundary Agreement. I asked the Taoiseach whether any steps had been taken by any Government since 1925 to repudiate that agreement, to restore the position whereby co-operation on matters like the fishing industry would be brought back to the position they had been in prior to 1921. The answer the Taoiseach gave was:—

"In so far as the instrument purported to determine a boundary between two parts of Ireland, it has long since been repudiated by the declaration, in Article 2 of the Constitution, that ‘The National territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas'. Any formal action specifically repudiating the articles of the instrument which concern Partition is unnecessary and would seem to give to those articles a significance which they do not, in fact, possess."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not seem to be relevant.

Mr. McQuillan

I will make it relevant. That reply was given in Volume 161, column 448 of the Dáil Debates. The reply stated I was giving to the Articles of the 1925 Agreement a significance which they do not possess. I wonder was it I was giving them a significance or is it the courts are giving them a significance——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Lands does not seem to have any responsibility for this.

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister for Lands must have responsibility in that he is responsible for the fishing industry. The Taoiseach maintains that the 1925 Boundary Agreement was repudiated by the Constitution. In spite of that, we have fishermen from the Six-County area prevented from fishing in Irish territorial waters. Have we reached any concrete position at all from which we can argue Ireland's case? If we here in this free portion of Ireland prosecute an Irishman from occupied Ireland for fishing in Irish territorial waters, how can we face an international court and say Partition should never be, when we ourselves here recognise it in that fashion by fining a fisherman from that area? We have to be practical.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Lands is not responsible for decisions of the courts.

Mr. McQuillan

I suggest that the Minister take the necessary steps to consult with his colleagues in the Government and that, if necessary, steps be taken by legislation, and taken immediately, to ensure that no further prosecutions of this kind will take place and that, if the action in the court was a mistake, it be rectified. According to the information given by the Taoiseach, the district justice's decision was not based on the Constitution. Of course, we know the district justice based his decision on the 1933 Fisheries Act. Section 3 of the Sea Fisheries Protection Act, 1933, gives power to the courts to prosecute a fisherman from the occupied part of Ireland. I understood from the Taoiseach's reply to me that the 1937 Constitution changed all that. We find that the change is only in name and that, in fact, no change has taken place. God help the fisherman from the occupied part of Ireland who fishes around our coast.

While we prosecute and hound the fishermen from the occupied part of Ireland, we invite the Orange leaders to come down here and fish for the king of fish, the salmon. So far as I am concerned, the Orange leaders are welcome—céad mile fáilte to them — to come down here to fish. They are coming down to fish for salmon as a pastime—in their spare time, when not locking up young Republicans. They will come down to fish for salmon at the invitation of An Bord Fáilte, but if an Irish fisherman with a small trawler puts his nose round Louth, it is God help him; he will have the Irish fleet on his back, he will be towed to port and fined for daring to enter Irish territorial waters. I want to see that position changed.

I wish the Minister luck and I have the greatest possible sympathy with him in the task ahead of him. He knows that I personally am one of those possibly criticising him most in regard to land, but in the case of fisheries, he is new to it and he cannot be tarred with any brush as far as vested interests are concerned. He will get the next 12 months free of criticism from me and he will get my support; and in a division I shall not vote against him on the points put forward by Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Coogan

There is no Department which can give a better return than the Department of Fisheries or give a greater labour content, pound for pound of expenditure, if wisely spent. We are blessed with one of the greatest inland fisheries in Europe. It is one of the best assets the hotels have, as a tourist attraction in the off-season. We can extend the season, especially in my area in the West, where we depend so much on tourism. We have the angler there at a time of the year when the ordinary tourist is awaiting the weather. It is an old saying in the West that when the May fly is up, anglers will fly over from England. The usual telegrams are sent: "Fly up, fly across."

About 18 months ago, I attended the Department with a certain deputation on a very important question. The proposal at that meeting was the linking of two of our greatest lakes, the Mask and the Corrib, through the abandoned Canal at Cong. We know the history of that abandonment, that it was due to the porous nature of the canal that the work was stopped. I have it on good engineering authority that in this concrete age that section of the canal could be sealed and that would connect two of the greatest inland fisheries in the world. When I say inland fisheries, I mean free fisheries. The linking of these great lakes would be of the greatest benefit in the West as a tourist attraction.

I should like the Minister also to take note of a point that deputation mentioned, the question of a salmon hatchery on the Corrib. We know that, due to the Corrib scheme, there are ova beds there which have been disturbed and they may require a little assistance, though of course nature will find its own in regard to that.

Turning to sea fisheries, I was glad to note the Minister's tribute to the former Minister on his policy, which increased the landings at our ports. That is a very important thing. He gave me a reply here on the landings at Galway. We have a new fish-freezing plant and an auction mart at Galway, erected at quite an appreciable figure. Its requirements will be at least 50 tons a week. The Minister told me, in reply to my question, that the landings at present are 20 tons per week. There is an appreciable gap there to be made up. The Minister should let us know his intentions in that regard, to keep that plant working to capacity so that it will give its full labour content and help to relieve the unemployment of which we hear so much.

I would suggest to the Minister the provision of trawlers for the Claddagh fishermen. We had a famous herring fleet in Galway, famous around these isles, which is now a thing of the past. The quays are grass grown, the men have turned to building or joined steamship lines. Some of them are there still, some of the finest fishermen in the world, men with a tradition behind them, men who understand the needs of fishing. While our fishermen are idle, the Minister should tell us what he intends to do to employ those men locally, men who know their stuff when it comes to fishing and who have proved that in the past. If it pays the French and the Spaniards to come to our coast, and if we have fishermen idle, walking the streets of Galway, the onus is on the Minister to step in. Ministers in the past—from various Parties in the House—have shirked it but it pays men to come from France and Spain to collect the harvest at our doorsteps, a harvest which could give much needed employment. There is need to develop the lobster fishing in the West and to develop markets in France for lobsters.

I should also like to see a proper maintenance service for trawlers instead of having them tied up for months, practically, as we have in Galway, where men are idle because boats cannot be repaired due to our not having a proper maintenance service. If we had such a service it would give the trawlers a quick turn round. I should like to congratulate the Minister on his fact-finding visit to Galway yesterday. I am sure he will have seen what I have pointed out to him with regard to both sea and inland fisheries. The development of both is of great importance from the tourist point of view and from the point of view of giving employment to workers in the West.

Before I conclude I would ask the Minister to see that we have greater protection for our fishermen. One frequently sees men coming in with their gear cut to pieces, cut across by Spaniards. In one case of which I have personal experience a man's gear has been ruined. The case has been going on for months and he has not been paid. This man cannot find gear waiting for him on the side of the pier when he returns and the Department is rather slow in regard to seeing when such men are paid. The facts of this case have been put before the Department; the guilty party in Spain is known and I hope our authorities there will see that the question is settled soon. I should like the Minister when replying to cover the question of the linking of the Mask and the Corrib and also to say what he intends to do for the Claddagh fishermen, who are idle. These men have a certain tradition and they can deliver the goods if they are given an opportunity.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Bartley)

I have the utmost sympathy with Deputy McQuillan when he speaks about the prosecution of Six-County fishermen who land their fish in our territory. I would suggest to Deputy McQuillan that he should try to take a somewhat converse view of these facts and let them be used as an argument, and as some extra support, for our case against Partition. Under the laws imposed on us and maintained by force, we are obliged to prosecute fellow Irishmen. We have not the necessary force to prevent that very Gilbertian situation. We are obliged to prosecute them because, if we do not then, cross-Channel trawlers can come over here and land their catches to the detriment of our own fishermen. The protection now being exercised for the benefit of our own fishermen would otherwise be swept away from us.

There has been, as the Revenue Commissioners know, a fair amount of surreptitious smuggling into the waters to which he has referred. I think the commissioners did very good work in the manner in which they finally brought the culprits to justice. There is no let up for us in this matter and we shall have to continue prosecuting these people. If we do not provide for the protection of our fishermen the existence of the very fine fleet which we have is at stake. I would remind Deputy McQuillan that after the Republic of Ireland Act was passed in 1948 our fishermen were subjected to a 10 per cent. duty if they landed fish in County Down. That was not the position before and nothing could be done about it since.

I was never able to read a long speech so quickly as the speech delivered by the former Parliamentary Secretary. I think he moved the Adjournment on three occasions; it is quite easy to scan every column and see that the speech has only two or three points. One of these has reference to dynamite in the fishing industry. I think that I am the culprit in the eyese of some people. I am the person who put this piece of dynamite in the fishing industry some years ago.

I should like to refer to the oblique reflections which the former Parliamentary Secretary cast on civil servants. He tried, I know, in subsequent remarks to take the edge of his criticisms of civil servants but I would say to the former Parliamentary Secretary that I had no difficulty in my dealings with civil servants in relation to the implementation of Fianna Fáil policy. If Deputy O.J. Flanagan, as Parliamentary Secretary had, well then I say the fault did not lie with the civil servants but with Deputy Flanagan himself.

Two cases in point are the two matters which were the chief stock-in-trade of the Opposition speakers — the salmon levy and the three German trawlers, as they were called. I have a suspicion that it is the nationality of the trawlers that is in question more than their capabilities. In any event, I found that civil servants answered my questions as factually as they were able. They went to no end of trouble to get the information which I wanted but, having got it, none of them gave the slightest bit of tendentious advice. I was left to make whatever proposals were to be made to the Government.

The three German trawlers, or to give them their correct name, the three off-shore vessels, came to this country and the chief objection to them in certain circles was the fact that they were State-owned. That little fact was warped and used in the most insidious ways. The inshore man's ability to come back to attend Mass on Sundays as against the alleged inability of the man on the off-shore vessel to do likewise, was used very tendentiously and was re-used having been whispered into the ears of people in very exalted positions.

The reason they were bought was that they were steel-clad and we had no steel-clad boats. Deputy Coogan gave the reason they were bought. We had this bullying going on. Our fishermen were operating medium-sized, wooden-built fishing vessels. The corvettes can be harboured only in one or two places along the coast to protect our fishermen. Everybody knows that the corvettes can be seen a long way off and when they have cleared off down the coast the other boats come in again later. For the very purpose which Deputy Coogan mentioned, to meet bullying by strength, in the first instance, these three steel-clad boats were required. We had intended, if we could have got an ice supply early on, to base these three in Galway and elsewhere around the danger points as occasion rose. But, just as in the case of the land annuities and a number of other things, because it was we who got them and because they were a new venture they were immediately made political ships and they have been damned ever since by political antagonism.

Those three vessels cost £52,000 and not £62,000, as was stated here. I claim that, if there had not been an engine in any of them, the three hulks post-war were worth every penny of that £52,000. They were worth every penny if they were used only for the one purpose I mentioned, namely, to protect our fishermen around the coast. But there were other purposes behind them, and one of them was that these ships would go a little further afield than would our wooden vessels. Thirdly, and more important, was the fact that they were to be used to train apprentices as whole-time fishermen.

There were difficulties due very largely to the fact that we did not have sufficient trained personnel to man them. In 20 years, according to the information supplied to me, not half a dozen men in this country took out their fishing skipper's ticket, and when we went to look for qualified men we could get only one. We had then to get a German and an Englishman. These boats were acquired to train our own young men and give them the experience necessary at sea, together with facilities on land, to equip them to become first-class fishing skippers.

Mr. Lindsay

Were the vessels used, in fact, for any one of these three purposes?

Mr. Bartley

Deputy Lindsay would not believe me if I told him the truth.

Mr. Lindsay

Tell me the truth now. Were any of these used for any one of the three purposes mentioned?

Mr. Bartley

These vessels went as far afield as Iceland.

Mr. Lindsay

Were they, in fact, used for any one of the three purposes mentioned?

Mr. Bartley

Deputy Lindsay is not going to have my speech carried on through the medium of question and answer, the cross-examination being done by him. He will please retain what he has to say and say it when he comes to speak himself.

Mr. Lindsay

I must take it that the answer then is "No".

Mr. Bartley

I am not going to be bullied.

Mr. Lindsay

Nobody is trying to bully the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order! The Parliamentary Secretary is in possession.

Mr. Davern

Deputy Coogan is dumbfounded at last.

Mr. Coogan

Not a bit. I am not at sea like some of the Deputies on the opposite benches. Government Deputies would not know a herring from a mackerel.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Bartley

I want to thank Deputy O. Flanagan for one piece of information he gave. He said the former Minister had directed that these vessels be sold and, if I quote him correctly, an offer of £75,000 was made for them. Where are we now? Deputy Flanagan's evaluation of these three so-called German trawlers is £75,000.

Let me make a comparison. It is on this comparison the decision to take these three vessels was made. When Cumann na nGaedheal was in office they engaged in a particular method of supplying the home market. It was somewhat different from our method. They had a charter party of four steam trawlers from across the Channel and, if my recollection is accurate, they lost something like £130,000 on that charter party. Having lost £128,000, the boats went back home to their owners. One can now compare £128,000 in 1930 with a loss of £38,000 for the three German vessels, vessels which we own in any event and which Deputy Flanagan now says are worth £75,000.

Mr. Carty

Deputy Flanagan is a good man at valuing things.

Mr. Coogan

The Deputy would not recognise a cod, but there are a lot of them over there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Coogan must cease interrupting. The Parliamentary Secretary is in possession.

Mr. Bartley

There was nobody on the other side of the House to make a political issue of that charter party and that loss of £130,000. We said: "Very well. Even at 1930 values, £130,000 is something Fianna Fáil is prepared to stand over if we can gain information by the use of those vessels for the benefit of the Irish fishing industry." We did not talk about four derelict British trawlers.

Why is there no reference ever made to the loss on the ordinary boats supplied to our inshore fishermen? Who will contradict me when I say that some £600,000 is still outstanding in respect of boats financed out of the public purse, not counting those in respect of which the losses were wiped out under the Fishery Laws Revision Act of 1931? But that loss of £600,000 is in my opinion a much better expenditure than spending £600,000 on the dole. Why is there no reference to that loss? Why is all the reference to the three German trawlers, which we own in any event and which, according to Deputy Flanagan, are now worth £75,000?

We shall never fully protect our inshore fishermen with our corvettes. It is quite impossible.

Dr. Esmonde

Hear, hear!

Mr. Bartley

Deputy Dr. Esmonde says: "Hear, hear!"

Dr. Esmonde

It is impossible.

Mr. Bartley

It was because we recognised that it was impossible that we decided to supplement the service given by the corvettes with these vessels, which we bought and which we intended to put out in groups. Foreign fishing trawlers are all around the coast. As Deputy Coogan knows, they come from the Continent and there is no way of dealing with them other than by paying them back in their own coin.

Dr. Esmonde

Protection could be given with proper fishery protection vessels, not corvettes.

Mr. Bartley

What is a proper fishery protection vessel?

Dr. Esmonde

A boat that can go out suddenly from the coast and which will not be seen miles away.

Mr. Bartley

What kind of boat? I decided on something. What is the Deputy's "something"?

Dr. Esmonde

There are plenty of types to be had.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Coogan

Will the dry-land sailors shut up?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Bartley

The vessels we bought are now worth more. Deputy O. Flanagan's valuation is £75,000.

Mr. Lindsay

Were they, in fact——

Mr. Bartley

Oh, for goodness' sake, shut up. Keep quiet. Sit down and keep quiet.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed to make his speech without interruption. Deputies will get every opportunity of making their speeches.

Mr. Lindsay

The boats were never used for that purpose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must cease interrupting.

Mr. Bartley

Nobody is more entitled to speak about these three boats than the man who bought them. If they have proved to be dynamite in the fishing industry, then I think that has been a very, very useful contribution to the industry because it has caused a flutter in a good many of the dovecotes. I intended to develop the references made by Deputy Flanagan to civil servants.

Mr. Lindsay

Quote.

Mr. Bartley

There was a time when there was a Minister for Fisheries here. The pity of it is that the Government of the day, the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, did not continue that and have a political head in Fisheries all down the years. I am sorry to say the Fianna Fáil Government did not appoint a political head either but then Fianna Fáil had the excuse that they were involved in the economic war and in the events of 1939 onwards. Nevertheless, it is a pity they did not revert to the former position and appoint a political head in Fisheries. As everybody knows on both sides of this House, Fisheries was in fact left in the hands of a civil servant, in the hands of one civil servant, and that is the cause in my opinion of a great deal of the trouble which has resulted in the fishing industry ever since.

Mr. Lindsay

Who is casting reflections on the Civil Service now?

Mr. Bartley

For goodness' sake, will the Deputy hold his tongue? Plans have been mentioned by Deputy McQuillan. There were plans and the plans were produced for the fishing industry as well as for rural electrification and a number of other things. Plans were there in the Fisheries Branch to be put into operation when the post-war situation warranted it. If you had had a politician at the head of Fisheries as soon as the war ended those plans would have been implemented very early on after the war and there would not have been a waiting period until there was a change of government in 1948.

If I appear to agree with Deputy Flanagan in regard to civil servants I possibly could put up a better justification than he has, but let me say that as regards civil servants generally I found them truthful, competent and ready to give me factual answers to my questions. They left it to myself to assess the value of those answers and did not give me any tendentious views.

One of the objections to these boats was that they were State boats. It is not necessary for me to repeat the three reasons I have given as to why they were bought. The fact of their ownership made no difference whatever and if we could have got private people to procure boats of this kind we would have been very pleased. Indeed I was very bucked personally when a private individual, one of the best authorities on the Irish fishing industry, came to me and said he would be very glad to have one, two or three of them, but I said they were not for sale.

The Gaeltacht boat scheme is a scheme that occurs naturally to the mind of any Deputy who represents a Gaeltacht constituency. I was no exception in that regard, and having been put in a position of responsibility, I pondered on the needs of these Gaeltacht districts. Deputy Lynch stated that everything was going to the West, but quite the reverse was the case. Even when a standard boat was worth only £700 the Gaeltacht man was not able to raise the deposit, and I set myself the task, as a Gaeltacht Deputy and as Parliamentary Secretary in charge of fisheries, of thinking out a means whereby we could assist these people who could not assist themselves.

I shall not concede to any civil servants, competent and all as they may be, the credit for even the embryonic stages of this scheme. It was my own idea and I discussed it with these civil servants afterwards. I said we must draw up a scheme for it, and we did. I want to express my appreciation of the readiness with which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government at the time, Deputy Jack Lynch, agreed to give us a considerable share of his allocation of the National Development Fund to finance it. He did not make the slightest demur, after one or two days' consideration of my request, in putting up £80,000 out of his share of the National Development Fund, and so the Gaeltacht Boat Scheme came into being.

Deputy Dillon now makes play of the fact that the physical production of the boats fell to their lot. That was the luck of the political game, but it was a scheme handed over by us. Although they condemned the three so-called German trawlers as State-owned boats, these Gaeltacht boats are also State-owned boats and the State will continue to own them until the men in charge of them are able to have earned enough to put up a deposit. There is no objection to State ownership in this case, but simply because the board had three boats of their own, then State ownership was all wrong. I came across more fallacies and hypocrisy over the ownership of the so-called German trawlers than I thought were to be found in this country.

When Deputy Lynch was speaking about the West getting everything, he mentioned Waterford. Waterford was not neglected at all when we were in office. In fact we found that we were able to congratulate the Waterford fishermen on doing so well and on achieving a position of prominence in the fishing industry that was not to be found in every county. In recognition of that fact Dunmore was, very early on, selected for development, and the Minister has now been in a position to announce that that development will take place quite soon.

On this question as to where the emphasis was laid, there was a question asked when we came into office in 1951 about the repair of a pier in County Mayo. I do not know whether it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance or myself who was giving the reply, but it was to the effect that the matter was under consideration. Lest the consideration would have a favourable result, Deputy Dillon said: "In regard to this harbour, I gave the green light to go ahead with that matter before I left office." A very short time afterwards I was able to look up the files in the matter and I found that not alone did they not give the green light to go ahead with that scheme but that on polling day, 1951, they had turned down this proposal for £4,000. We had no difficulty in recommending and finding £20,000 for the same job when we assumed office, and the Mayo County Council gave £6,000 more.

When three boatyards were to be established on the west coast, Deputy Dillon, as the then Minister, could not give us one out of the three between Loop Head and Erris Head. The whole middle-west coast was left without anything. Now Deputy Flanagan comes along and puts his own valuation on a proposal which came from me when I was in office to develop Rosaveel. He frightened the Connacht Tribune into criticism of a proposal for Rosaveel by stating it would cost £500,000. Anyway, I want to thank him for the fact that I shall be able to quote him when I go to Rosaveel in relation to to this proposal to do something in the heart of the Fíor-Ghealtacht which never got very much in the way of development. I can say I have it out of the mouth of my opponent that I did in fact have something in the bag for them and that the statements of my opponents during the last general election campaign that I was only fooling them was not true. One's opponent can give one very useful corroboration from time to time.

On the general question of fishery development I am told, and I have been told very often, that if we merely were concerning ourselves with supplying fish to the fish-eating public in this country we could do it quite easily and economically by employing eight deep sea trawlers. In proof of our statement that we placed in the highest priority the inshore man we can offer the fact that we did not get a fleet of these trawlers. We did get three and these three were for the purpose mentioned, to supply the deficiency between home consumption and home landings to the largest extent possible.

If we now have prosperity among inshore fishermen the credit, in my opinion is due above all other causes, to the use made by the Government of the Trade Agreement of 1938 with the British Government which gave us the power to license the importation of fresh fish. From the time that that licensing became effective the Irish fisherman with a good boat has never looked back. I admit that the effect of the new position was not felt or observed by anyone, even the closest observers, during the war because, instead of getting any fish from Britain, Britain was looking for all the fish we could produce, and we had a repetition of our experiences during the first world war when anybody who had any sort of an old crock of a boat was able to go out and get a fair supply of fish because the Atlantic fishing fleets were not operating and it was obvious that there was a much larger supply of fish inshore which these otherwise useless boats were able to get. We knew that in the post-war period we would have a repetition of our experience after the 1914-18 war or of that period in the early 'twenties. That would have happened if it had not been for the 1938 Agreement which gave us the right, which we have continued to use ever since, to reserve our home market for home supplies.

People make great play about the importation of a supply of canned fish but there is nothing we can do about it inasmuch as there are people who will not eat fresh fish. If one prevents the import of canned fish you deny such people the right to eat fish. Who is going to force them to eat fresh fish if they prefer canned fish? Who is going to start a salmon canning industry here when one considers the prices salmon fishermen are getting for fresh salmon? I suggest that it is because the quantity of salmon landed in British Columbia, or wherever it is coming from, is so great that it can be sold here at prices which we can afford to pay. There is nothing we can do about it. Certainly we cannot compete with that by canning Irish salmon. The development of salmon fishing here is, in the first place, to be considered as a sporting industry and after that, we find salmon can be sold at 10/- a lb. on the marble slabs here in Dublin.

That brings me to another matter that has been taken into the political sphere—unjustifiably and unnecessarily in my opinion—the levy of 2d. per lb. on salmon until the 1st June and 1d. per lb. thereafter. I had representations made to me from various sources, salmon anglers' associations, boards of conservators and others, and I asked the departmental advisers to give me as much information on the matter as they could. They did that, but they could not say very much because it was a case of being given the figures for money spent on protection, the estimated requirements for better protection, the figures for the exports of salmon and the prices. On these facts a decision was reached and my recollection is that at that time the export price of salmon was between 6/- and 7/- per lb. and that nine-tenths of the catches of salmon, it was estimated, were exported. Nine-tenths of the salmon, therefore, fetched something between 6/- and 7/- per lb.

The licence on a draught net was £4 and we felt it was a more equitable thing to ask, as the income-tax people do in England, the salmon fishermen to pay as they earned rather than to bring up the cost of the net licence, to which, in fact, some of the net fishermen were prepared to agree to. I was puzzled very much by the agreement of fishermen in various places to pay a double licence. I said: "You are paying £4 now, and you are going to agree to pay £8." I knew there were other expenses which they had to meet at the beginning of the salmon season besides paying £4 for the salmon licence. They had to equip or repair their boats, perhaps, and I felt that putting an addition on to the overheads was not the best way to go about solving the problem. On inquiry as to why the fishermen were agreeing to pay this double licence I found that the political propaganda against the levy had so poisoned the minds of the fishermen that they thought they would be paying anything from £20 to £40 in the season.

It seemed to me there was nothing I could do to convince these people of the truth. If there was £4 put on the licence, then at 2d. per lb. that would represent, in my opinion, taking the average weight of salmon into account, about 100 salmon. That means that the levy of 2d. on 100 salmon would have been about equivalent to an extra £4 on the licence. But one could not get that fact even considered by the fishermen, because their minds had been so prejudiced in a few places— and in a few places only.

Generally I found recognition of the fact that this was a fair way of doing it, if we had to get extra money for protection. But Deputy Dillon as Minister chided me for having in fact succeeded only in relieving the Exchequer. I do not presume to understand the mechanics of the Minister of Finance accounts but they were presented in a way which lent some plausibility to Deputy Dillon's argument. The fact, however, was that we were looking for an additional £14,000 or £15,000 to supplement the other revenues available for protection and we had the estuary fishermen in mind as much as anybody else in trying to provide that protection. They had said to me: "We are prepared to make any extra sacrifice in reason that will protect the spawning salmon going up into the narrows. We do not get all the fish in the estuary; we get a share of them."

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 19th June, 1957.